mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Until you develop film it's just as virtual, except you can't see anything, power off or power on. And in any case I don't think that it has anything to do with photography, which by definition is drawing with light.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I don’t disagree, just pointing out that there is a physical dimension to holding a print as opposed to an undeveloped negative or a file, neither of which is viewable without further transformation. All are certainly photography, and those that create them are certainly photographers (in my opinion).

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

Of course I'm a photographer, at least when I'm not an electronic technician, gardener, writer, father, grandfather, ham radio operator, weather watcher, and so on...

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Simple question. Did you use a light sensitive medium to create your image? If the answer is yes, then you are a photographer.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I too, am old and I started film photography back in 1957. I began the move from film to digital in 2001 or so and completed (for the most part) the move with the purchase of my Nikon D70s (new at the time). The Meriom Webster definition of Photography: 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).
I have several thousand b&w and color film negatives and several hundred more color slides. This does not include the albums of B&W and Color prints that are in the bookcase. However, I also have 14 terabytes of digital images catagorized, dated, cataloged and stored digitally on my hard drives. Yes photography has changed but the process is still similar. The photographer still captures light on a light sensitive material to form an image or if you prefer a graph of the image. This graph of 1's and 0's is transformed by the software in the camera and also by software on the computer to make a digital image or "photo" graph of the scene. What really happened was that the photography process changed.. you no longer lug a wooden camera and a tent with processing materials AND 8x10 or 4x5 sheets of glass to be treated with light sensitive chemicals so make a graphic image. It has been simplified. It had reached a point where the ability to capture images and process or transmit them has reached hundreds of millions of people instead of the few harty souls that either lugged or had assistants lug large amounts of chemicals, glass for the negatives, the camera with the hood to keep light off of the back, and all of the other material for taking one 10 minute (or what ever) exposure.
Yes, photography has gotten easier. It has evolved and moved to where we can take a few pounds of gear (or a cell phone) into the filed and capture images (photo graphs) of what we see. We don't have to deal with the developing at that time, but we can (at least) see the results of our work and ether move on or shoot again.
In the 1950's, I would take a Roleiflex, Kodak 35, Leica, or other film camera into the field with a couple of lenses, and shoot 4 or 5 rolls of 35mm film (I shot 20 exposure film because I never knew if I wanted to change from Tri-X to Kodachrome or Agfa or what, depending on what I was shooting. So yes, digital is easier, and better (because we can see the results on the back of the camera as soon as the shot is made and reshoot if necessary). BUT it is still a PHOTO GRAPH. In scientific terms, the camera is making a digital graph of the image that it captures.

hawleyrw Loc: Dayton, OH

I consider a photographer is one who doesn’t just hold their device up and shoot, (every smartphone user out there), but photographer thinks about what he/she is going to shoot, the exact look they want in the outcome (no matter the format) and works artfully to produce that ‘minds eye’ image they they first see when they notice something of interest.

In that regard, I know many ‘photographers’, who take the time to compose a shot, adjust the metering, aperture and shutter speed to get exactly what they want. IMHO, composition is 9/10 of what makes a good photograph. All the rest have a bit (though slight) less value especially in today’s times where automatic “everything” is available on our devices. I cant recall the last time I set up a shot completely manual. I do remember the days when I did. How FAR we’ve come! Revel in the fact you’re a photographer and be proud of your hobby, enthusiast, or profession. I am.

eskimoky

By now there must be enough of "harvested" images on the internet that would certainly keep many,many so called photographers busy and happy for the remainder of humankinds existence without them ever having to hold a camera in their hands.and they could create and manipulate to their hearts content!so ...because they manipulate someone elses collection of electrons does that make them a photographer? And what if a shot is taken with care and attention to detail ,but has a flaw or two? Perhaps it represents a story caught forever in one 4000's of a second ,that can never be fully replicated no mater how many electrons are moved or replaced or added?its my moment in time frozen forever .its my choice,its a personalized moment captured with a tool that is still as mystical and wondrous as that fabric and wood contraption flown at kittyhawk! Perception,perception,perception! Create on! And damn the torpedos!

Stephan G

But, but... The electrons are the things that "excite" the pixels.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

Darn, the term "electrologist" is already taken!

I create photographs. I do it differently than I did 45 years ago, but the end result is the same.

Stephan G

And remember. We all can be replaced with robots!

Burtzy Loc: Bronx N.Y. & Simi Valley, CA

This is the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, renamed for photography. Is the cat in the box dead or alive? It is in both states until we observe it. Pictures in a photo album are not pictures until we observe them. Collections of stored photos on the web are not photos until we download them and look at them. I submit that we are photographers from the instant we observe and preserve an image, whichever the medium. It is our take on what we see that makes us artists and photography is an art with a craft component, just like any other form of art.

eskimoky

Ahhh yes ...canon f1

Ron 717 Loc: Pennsylvania

I’ve been called many things over my 79 years and Photographer is one that I like the best.

Largobob

Oh, Dear Lord, please forgive me for entering into this! (LOL)

Stepping further back....aren't we really "memorializing a collection of PHOTONS?" PHOTONS: Neither truly wave nor particle....that are absorbed, transmitted or reflected off of objects; are capable of being focused by a lens; are captured by the photosensitive retina of the eye (chemical/electrical), the photographic emulsion (chemical), or the digital sensor as discrete pixels (digital/electronic)....and capable of being interpreted by the brain (chemical/electrical)!

So, in the most basic sense.....aren't we just finding alternative ways of "MEMORIALIZING PHOTONS?"

Howard5252 Loc: New York / Florida (now)

When film came out and photographers no longer had to coat their own plates, did they stop being photographers? We have not changed; the technology has.