So you call yourself a photographer

the following little vid illustrates why I do not call myself a photographer. People like this guy however, are photographers. Creativity literally seeping out of his pores...disgusting, right?
https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=tuJrm53Q0dE

I loved the Chase Jarvis one with the Lego camera!

It's so true! Genius is genius.

I went through the video, while watching after project at work. Sitting and waiting for my part during last five hours.
I have no audio for this video due to this. On video it seems like final pictures were heavy manipulated in PS. To me it isn't about to be photographer but special effects artist.
Or was it long exposure?
Nothing which strikes my in term of photography in pictures at the end of the video.

kf095 wrote in post #17171659
I went through the video, while watching after project at work. Sitting and waiting for my part during last five hours.
I have no audio for this video due to this. On video it seems like final pictures were heavy manipulated in PS. To me it isn't about to be photographer but special effects artist.
Or was it long exposure?
Nothing which strikes my in term of photography in pictures at the end of the video.

What? Photography isn't just one thing or type of photo.

kf095 wrote in post #17171659
I went through the video, while watching after project at work. Sitting and waiting for my part during last five hours.
I have no audio for this video due to this. On video it seems like final pictures were heavy manipulated in PS. To me it isn't about to be photographer but special effects artist.
Or was it long exposure?
Nothing which strikes my in term of photography in pictures at the end of the video.

Many of those shots were not ps manipulated, Especially not the big yellow square windowy thing, clarity, vibrance, probably exposure etc but no psing. the black scarf ones, and tenny runners were. So I remain impressed with his creativity, and eye. You are welcome to your opinion.

I think it it brilliant. I watched parts of some of the others and IMO they showed some of the limitations. You could of course argue that the type of shooting he was doing is not exactly camera dependent.

The best thing about it was just watching him work. Using the 'crappy' camera with 14 shots was just an extra that made it even better.

Best one I've seen so far IMO is the Benjamin Von Wong one.

kf095 wrote in post #17171659
On video it seems like final pictures were heavy manipulated in PS. To me it isn't about to be photographer but special effects artist.
Or was it long exposure?

These kinds of comments always make me think the person speaking is someone who never worked with film.

If the same manipulated images had been produced with film, would the person then qualify as a "photographer"? Not trying to be mean, honest question.

That whole series on Digital Rev is fun to watch, it is fun and can teach a good bit about improvisation and working with what you have...

I picked up a cheap little camera in a "thrift" store for $5 a few months ago and have had some good times with it!

tonylong wrote in post #17175159
I picked up a cheap little camera in a "thrift" store for $5 a few months ago and have had some good times with it!

I picked up a PowerShot S95, a little more than $5 but I am working on a project based around advanced point and shoots...I am looking forward to working with it this weekend.

ve been having some "issues", crazy stuff. This morning a little squirrel popped up on a sunflower my daughter had planted, I got people to look at it, they wanted pictures, but because I'm at this point pretty much crippled, this is all I could come up with trying to work around a table and chairs and manual focus and such:

this was funny and i sort of like digital rev, but i think it show's that any one can be a photographer theses days !being truly good at it,thats another story .

the video makes a good point reinforcing that creativity is in the mind of the photographer, not the equipment. However, the video failed to mention that without decent editing software, many of those pictures wouldn't have been possible with the point-and-shoot camera alone.

hes gone wrote in post #17174846
=he's gone;17174846]These kinds of comments always make me think the person speaking is someone who never worked with film.

If the same manipulated images had been produced with film, would the person then qualify as a "photographer"? Not trying to be mean, honest question.

OK. I'm great photographer then. This one was printed last night. With dodge&burn.