>Date: 18/07/03 08:59 GMT Daylight Time
>How do we define Photography?
>According to current tradition, one would regard it as a craft and/or an art
>using the medium of photography (drawing with light on a sensitive
>recording medium with the use of an optical train). Is this definition
>completely irrelevant, or invalid, or wrong?
>(NB: there's a deliberate difference in the usage of upper and lower case
>'p'. The upper case denotes the art/craft and the lower case denotes the
>If it's not wrong, if it even approximates the essence of Photography, would
>it not follow that a Photographer is one who has some command of the medium
>of photography? In fact, isn't it really the case that the Photographer is
>presumed to have (some amount of) said command, where the snap-shooter is
>May I presume that the concept of "command of the medium" is accessible,
>that the concept is understood both in principle and in application?
>If that's so, why are we recommending that such a command be regarded as
>optional? Don't the folk who come here to learn, come here to learn
>Photography rather than "Snapshootery"? Is it now the consensus that there
>is no difference between a Photograph and a snap-shot? Or is it the case
>that mere technical excellence of recorded image qualifies said image as a
>Photograph? Indeed, is it now the case that there is no difference between
>Photography and "Snapshootery"?!?
>I know that this is only tangentially topical here, but I'd really like to
>know! Can anyone explain all this to me? What am I missing here?