The difference between a good photographer and a great photographer.....

[wmphoto]

And some more specific examples of what I consider Digital Art and NOT Digital Photography. Enjoy, courtesy of Petapixel.

http://petapixel.com/2014/06/28/digi...e/#more-138921

So going back to the original question, does this ability with photoshop make him a better photographer? For me it's no. Not questioning his ability or the end results though.

[Granville]

So going back to the original question, does this ability with photoshop make him a better photographer? For me it's no.

For him also I believe. The article continually refers to the "digital art" not "digital photography". As it should be IMHO also.

[dacar]

My two bob's worth...
An interesting debate - it has all been said before but it is always good to revisit this topic and work out for ourselves where we stand.
As others have said, there is a huge grey area from photographer to digital artist and a line will never be drawn conclusively. In many other fields of artistic endeavour there are similar grey areas: Is a collage or a bas-relief 2D or 3D art? Is a painter still a painter if, like Jackson Pollock, he or she includes other substances than paint to realise the artistic vision?
In-camera or in-computer PP? Again, it's an arbitrary dividing line which has been moving and will continue to move as technology continues to develop.
Doing it all yourself, or sending it off to a lab? Again, an arbitrary line. The great Renaissance painters had workshops and apprentices who completed much of their work for them. Many of the "great" photographers we admire now had darkroom assistants to do some or most of their technical work. In both these cases, it was the Artist (with a capital A) who had the final say on what was made public under his or her name. The Artist was responsible for the artistic vision being fully realised. Great artists allowed only great work to be published.

So my stance at the moment is something like this: A GREAT photographer is someone who uses the medium of photography to produce great artwork which is generally recognized as belonging to the medium of photography. That person must have a great artistic vision and have enough control over the tools and techniques and the internal drive and persistence to realize that vision, and the vision is always far more important than the technical skill. That person must also be able to produce great work consistently over a long period of time.

A GOOD photographer can also have an artistic vision and technical skill and drive, but not to the same degree consistently. A GOOD photographer can probably recognize a GREAT shot he or she may have been fortunate to achieve but will probably not be able to consistently produce that quality.

Much of what I have said about the distinction between "great" and "good" applies to many other fields of endeavour. Great photographer will put in huge amounts of time and effort, and of course, talent, to produce their best work, but usually that doesn't count - the final product is judged on its merits alone. I used the word "usually" because when we know the circumstances surrounding the production of an image, or a series or images, or indeed an artist's entire output, that often colours our judgement.
Also, photographers work in different fields and that also affects our judgement. Great war photographers are judged by different standards to portrait photographers.

[bcys1961]

I think that is a good ( no GREAT) succinct summary David. Agree!

I will strive to get to GOOD , then worry about GREAT after that!

[ameerat42]

Well, time to recap: a photographer who takes pictures of fireplaces could aspire to becoming a GRATE photographer

...and perhaps a better speller.

[arthurking83]

......

...and perhaps a better speller.

That would make a GR8 starting point!

[Mark L]

zpelling don't much matter when taking pictures.
Selling might.