I know there are more than two, but most of the time it seems we landscape photogs are in one of two camps.
Either we are Romanticists ( Romanticism elevated the achievements of what it perceived as heroic individualists and artists, whose pioneering examples would elevate society. It also legitimized the individual imagination as a critical authority, which permitted freedom from classical notions of form in art. There was a strong recourse to historical and natural inevitability, a zeitgeist, in the representation of its ideas.)
Or we are Realists (Realism in the visual arts and literature refers to the general attempt to depict subjects "in accordance with secular empirical rules,"[1] as they are considered to exist in third person objective reality, without embellishment or interpretation. As such, the approach inherently implies a belief that such reality is ontologically independent of man's conceptual schemes, linguistic practices and beliefs, and thus can be known (or knowable) to the artist, who can in turn represent this 'reality' faithfully.).
Is it just me, or do these statements really seem to sum up our approaches to the craft?
I definitely find myself in the Romanticist camp, and it is readily apparent to me when I examine my "tastes" in photography, music, or literature.
Interesting. Personally, I consider myself an artist. Not sure where that places me in your categories. It would help if you gave examples of photographers or artists that you think belong in your two categories.
Posted by Phillip Noll on July 10, 2010 at 2:20 PM
Definitely Romanticist! (I'm not all that certain that I even know what "Reality" is anymore! )
I bellieve artists are in both camps, just with different approaches to their artistic expression. Just judging, and I hate that word, by your response, Alain, I would say you are a Romaniticist. The reason being, it seemed you recoiled at being labeled anything but "artist", which if I understand the terms correctly, would put you in that camp.
Phillip, that is exceptionally funny! Perhaps you could let us know why you "feel" you are in the Romanticist camp.
As for artists that appear to me to be in each of the camps, I might put Marc Adamus, Anthony Vincent, Chip Phillips, Mark Metternich, Matt Anderson, and Michael Anderson in the Romanticist camp for some examples. I will be most interested if they see themselves there or the other, or neither.
Hmmmm! Interesting question Morris and I don't think we know where each of us fall because of different perception by others of our art.
Even your list of Romantisists are a little different than mine would be. Yes some are the same, but I would include Floris, Ian Cameron, Lon Overacker, Tony Kuyper ..... to name a few.
My perception of my work is Romanticist but I am sure if you ask a variety of people, I am sure most would say Realist....... but that is what art is all about...... right?
Realists on my list are Stan Rose, Gerry Gere, Steve Sirene, Bret Edge, Bill Fach. .....but maybe that is not how they perceive their work.
Perceptive comments, Eva.
By the way, there is nor right or wrong with this. They are just philosophies or approaches. I certainly am no expert in this, but came across this topic with some internet exploration and it intrigued me.
I would wager everyone's list would be somewhat different. In fact, I propose that at different times in our artistic explorations we may be both.
I would agree also, Eva with your inclusions of the "Realists" list. Except Stan's dunes work moves into the other category.
I agree with your comments on my response. Given the choice between the two options the Romanticist one is the better one. I do react to being placed in a category however, as you noticed, especially by myself!
To be honest, I never think in these terms when I'm taking or developing images. The light sort of seems to determine it's own course and I just try to get it to where it wants to go. I've said that before, but I don't know how else to explain it. I guess I wish I had the power to choose.
Tony, no you don't, or you would have chosen. I have never thought of my approach in these terms before. As I said, I just came across these different movements recently. My workflow in the field and in processing is very similar to yours (in approach, not quality) as I try to let the image show it's own path.
Posted by Phillip Noll on July 10, 2010 at 11:28 PM
Hmmm. I wasn't going for funny! Well, not totally. Anyway, when I go out to photograph I don't really mind if I don't come home with a "keeper". I take most pleasure in just being in the wilderness. I go to feel a connection to something larger than myself. Many times when I'm out in the wild, photography becomes secondary and communion becomes primary. Sometimes the two coincide. And, if I'm prepared, I am able to capture an image of a meaningful event or an emotionally moving scene. (Of course luck favors the well prepared! )
So when it comes to my photographs, my goal is to touch something deep within the viewer. I'm going for an emotional (maybe even spiritual) response. A tall order, I know. I do want my photographs to accurately represent the scene but "third person objective reality" is not really what I'm after. So I will take some artistic license in post processing to try to achieve that goal. Romantic notions to be sure.
In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks.
--John Muir
Posted by Peter Barnes on July 11, 2010 at 12:53 AM
Well, if I have to try to digest stuff like "the approach inherently implies a belief that such reality is ontologically independent of man's conceptual schemes" to decide what sort of landscape photographer I am, then I'll do without a label, thanks.
So, does that make both of you Romanticists? I don't even know what ontological means, but I did get this part....."and thus can be known (or knowable) to the artist, who can in turn represent this 'reality' faithfully.). " I think the key word is "faithfully."
This has been very interesting reading. While I'm definately more of a realist (I let the single image speak for itself without much post processing), I try to "pull" an image and gather it in a way on my camera, that what I see as I press the shutter, is not the same thing as the camera "caught". Hoping what I wrote just made sense!
Well, my thoughts are once the image passes through the lens and onto the sensor or film it looses it's "reality" photo's first of all are not 3D and everyone's brain is going to interpret the sensory information differently ever so slightly. Just imagine for a moment you could freeze time at the instant of shutter release process the image romantically or realistically then return to where the image was captured and compare the two. They would be different regardless, since I want my images to be expressive as well a depictive I'm in the romanticist camp I guess.
Interesting topic Morris. IMO these two camps are not real camps and you are stating it too B&W. Rather I see them as historical approaches to art. the contemporary photographic artist uses (consciously on unconsciously) different approaches or a mix of different approaches to their work. Sure some will fall more into one than the other.I probably have more of a realistic approach than a romanticism approach, but also like to experiment with images that would fall in the romanticism 'camp'. Food for thought though!
I absolutely love how photographers express their thoughts and feelings about their art!
Yes, you make perfect sense, Marie.
That's profound, Paul.
Vincent, a delicious offering of food for thought you stated! And you are exactly right!
Posted by Richard Wong on July 12, 2010 at 1:31 AM
A little bit of both. For me, I don't do HDR or composite anything other than panoramics but I'll take some liberties with the luminosity and contrast of my images if it will help me to convey what I was looking to do. Of course shooting at magic hour is about creating a certain fantasy world in our images so that is where the romanticism comes into play.
For me, they are real camps, and im in both. My right brain (the dominant side) is romantic, and my left is realist. You would think the romantic side would fully win out, but as you (well, Eva) pointed out, i often fall in the realist camp. That's because if i dont appease my left brain often enough, it gives me a nasty hangover.
I challenge that all realist are actually romanticist parading in sheep’s clothing. The simple fact that zeitgeist as in the romanticist camp and ontologically in the realist camp are but two of the same philosophies biding for mutual understanding. You simple cannot be one without being the other, it is humanly impossible. It’s like saying I can only see photography as another’s interpretation. Or better yet, I can only see another’s photography as reality. We do not have such mind control.
How did you know I was a romantic Morris I guess my style sort of fall in line with what Tony K states about light. I definitely like to shoot for mood and graphic differences. You see a lot of similar shots all over the web and it takes a creative eye to "see" something new. If it doesn't evoke a deep feeling for me it's left in a "raw" state of despair Timing, technical prowess, and final editing are all important stages at rendering art, your way. Thats the beauty of photography is everyone has a style, its when you start copying someone note for note is when your in danger I think. I know we are all inspired by many and thats good, but crafting your own style is something that sits high, high on my list.
If it doesn't move you set it aside, if you come back and it still doesn't move you ----- delete it
Great topic Morris
I'm "one step back" from the categories as defined here, and I use the terms differently. For me they're business terms.
When I'm being a romantic, I'm shooting for the sheer entertainment of it, with sales potential not even on the horizon. If something from the efforts sells, neat. I'll take it. But that's not why I'm shooting. Much of the time selling the results would be like trying to push a rope.
When I'm being a realist, I'm sizing up the scene and conditions for sales potential. I have to drive the financial engine of our business, and I have a pretty good idea what sells and to whom, and what doesn't sell. I'm very calculated about framing and comp, colors and light, and almost always shoot for very specific commercial applications. Time and opportunity being limited I'll shoot the most likely to sell and the purely creative "play" falls by the wayside.
My heart is very much a Romantic (capital R) in purely artistic terms, probably shading more toward an Impressionist due to my taste for Monet. But that's secondary to being a Realist, or in my case it would more more accurately be called Documentarian.
Great thread. I strive to capture a sense of realism with a slight exaggeration of the elements that I find most appealing. I also tie trout flies and what I have learned over the years is that exact replica's of insects do not catch as many trout as flies that are impressions of trout food or exaggerate the parts of the insect that are (or seem to be) triggers compelling the trout to feed, such as wing placement, silhouette, what parts of the fly are penetrating the meniscus, etc. I find it interesting a similar reaction ocurrs when I show my images to people who love nature but are not photographers. The shots that are completely realistic get the obligatory "nice picture." but the images where I've saturated the red of a rose, brought out more details of a mossy wet rock or blurred moving water slightly, the dreamy oohs and aahs are music to my ears. So I guess that makes me a romanticist.
I also tie trout flies and what I have learned over the years is that exact replica's of insects do not catch as many trout as flies that are impressions of trout food or exaggerate the parts of the insect that are (or seem to be) triggers compelling the trout to feed, such as wing placement, silhouette, what parts of the fly are penetrating the meniscus, etc. I find it interesting a similar reaction ocurrs when I show my images to people who love nature but are not photographers. The shots that are completely realistic get the obligatory "nice picture." but the images where I've saturated the red of a rose, brought out more details of a mossy wet rock or blurred moving water slightly, the dreamy oohs and aahs are music to my ears. So I guess that makes me a romanticist.
Superb comparison! I'm afflicted with feather and hooks like you and have seen the same thing both in fish and viewers, but never made the connection.
Wow!
Posted by D J Kuklinski on July 17, 2010 at 12:36 AM
I'm in Camp Watchmacallitkookamonga.
I think I lean toward the Realist Romanticist: doing my best to transform reality into an artistic interpretation. I'm so confused.
To be honest Morris, I think this is a somewhat absurd division to make, especially in this forum. Landscape photography is in and of itself a romantic idealized view of our world. It excludes all the "ugly" human created bits and presumes that if our remains are not recognized, then we have made no impact on the land. But in reality, we have deeply affected almost all of the land on this planet whether we take permanent habitation there or not. But it also presumes that we are not of this planet/ecosystem, when in fact we are very much part of the environment. Whether our actions have positive or negative consequences is a different story.
But I would go even further and say that I'm not sure any photographer really and truly lives in the realist camp. Even documentary reportage photographers limit the field of view or use creative framing to create a message. Until 360 degree 3 dimensional representations of place can be created, any photograph is an alteration of reality. What we choose to omit is just as important to the image as what we choose to include.
I do not even try to think of things in this way. My only goal is to create elegant photographs.
Posted by David Senesac on July 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM
Morris I will confine my comments addressing landscape and nature photographers. The overwhelmingly majority of serious and pro level landscape photographers including those on this board are in what you are labeling the romantic idealized camp. And that has been the case ever since Velvia began to dominate in the early 90s. A label I wouldn't describe in such terms because I suspect motivations to manipulate images are more about the need to make money from their work for those depending on business for their livelihood and about praise and respect from peers on such public sites as this. I also would not complicate your realists term with that vague sub-comment that probably has a more narrow intent if one read the rest of whatever that came from.
Although the style of my work is solidly involved in capturing 2-dimensional momentary frames in time of what my eye see, I am not one of the many that would try to argue any other part of the style spectrum of photographic artists today is any less valid. As long as they present themselves up front honestly to their public audience for whatever that may be. And the latter is where I have criticism as many of those you are describing as Romanticists act as though they are afraid to admit such and instead say little or nothing apparently to allow their audience the imagination that such is what they actually captured in the manner of your Realists. Further some are predictably intent on arguing upon the impossibility of capturing reality with cameras apparently because to refute such somehow in their own mind legitamizes their own manipulations by being universal.
Mel, I would direct you to David's comments above as a very good example of someone, who to me, approaches the craft from a "Realist" position. And I, in no way, mean this as an insult, David! Please read his comments on processing from his philosophy web page. If I interepret his statements correctly, he wants to stay true to what he perceives he observes in nature. Please correct me if this is not accurate, David.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with his approach. He is free as an artist to bring his own vision to the image. The explanations on Romanticism and Realism are from Wickipedia, David. And yes, there is much more to read there and many other sources on both of these movements.
I suppose it will be history that decides where we are for the majority of photographic art in this country at this time.
Let me say that I did not know my posing of this question would create a minor firestorm as it has. I did not intend to suggest that these are the only approaches to our art. Only that the explanations I posted seemed to reflect the critiquing comments on images from the observations I have made while on this forum for the last couple of years. That the critiques seemed to me to come from a standpoint that the image may not have represented the scene faithfully, or from the other viewpoint, a critique that describes the same image as ethereal.
Again, let me state that my belief is that either of these approaches are valid. They are just different.
I am in the 'hopeful romantic' group. By this I mean that when I am in the field wandering around doing photography, or sitting quietly playing my guitar, I feel the romance of the world. The 'hopeful' part comes in when the photograph, or my music, (hopefully) conveys the sense of 'romance' I feel.
--P
Posted by Patrick Nixon on August 10, 2010 at 1:13 AM
I'm not sure that Romanticism and Realism are the only, or even the best, ways to describe the different intellectual and artistic preferences that occur among us.
Romanticism was an intellectual, artistic, literary, musical, and even scientific movement that began about 1750. It was a reaction to the constraints and mores of earlier Classicism which had emphasized harmony, order, clarity, and restraint. In short, a reaction to "rules" and aristocratic and social norms by which life and art were to be interpreted and lived. In particular, Romanticism valued intuition, feeling or emotion, as legitimate sources or expressions of knowledge. Artistically, it was characterized by disorder, the unexpected and exaggeration. In part, Romanticism was a reaction to the "science" of the Industrial Revolution.
In contrast, Realism developed about 1825-1850. It was a reaction to the supposed "chaos" of Romanticism, and valued reason (not human experience), truth and accuracy as legitimate sources and expressions of knowledge. Artistically, it was greatly advanced by the science of photography.
Romanticism can be described as: life as it should be (at its best). Realism can be described as: life as it is. Or from a photographic point of view: expression vs. depiction.
Now we all know that images have elements of both, and each of us is probably at a different point on that continuum. I, for example, prefer to photograph "natural" landscapes, rather than people or animals (action). But at the same time I seek to "express" by INTENTIONALLY adjusting composition (line, color, contrast of both color and light, and texture) to create an "impression." As my portfolio shows, I like strong contrast and saturation, even though some find such depiction or light "harsh." To me, there is value in both "soft" and "harsh" light, although I prefer the "stronger" variety.
It seems to me that the real "camps" are (1) those that are merely able to record or capture an image and (2) those that are also able to "express" or create an "impression" that moves others while doing so. The former are mere recorders and the latter are "artists" or "real photographers."
As some of my posts on this and other forums show, I seek to discover and rely upon "rules" or principles for "expression." Others may "express" more by intuition or pure experiential practice. To me, the discussion of Romanticists vs Realists is overdone and mis-directed. What we really should be focusing on is the sheer ability to express -- not debating the merits of how that expression develops or occurs.
Posted by David Senesac on August 14, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Patrick >>>"It seems to me that the real "camps" are (1) those that are merely able to record or capture an image and (2) those that are also able to "express" or create an "impression" that moves others while doing so. The former are mere recorders and the latter are "artists" or "real photographers." "
Long before most on this board worked in any way digital, early versions of Photoshop by the mid 90s for the graphic arts community could perform much of what is done today though such was at times more tedious. And such was supported by telephone book sized textbooks used in challenging courses. The target of such work was often Kodak Photo CD scans or scans by early scanners used by 4-color offset printing labs. Those who work off scans, even the highest level drum scans must have considerable skill to adjust transparencies next to their computer on a light table to reasonably match what is on a raw scan. Quality drums scans for instance are often darker than a transparency so as not to blow out highlights with the expectation those performing processing will readjust levels etc. It is trivial for someone with such skills to manipulate images upping saturation/contrast etc including more sophisticated actions like combining images that are often performed in advertizing work.
So I don't understand what you are referring to by "merely able to record or capture an image" unless you are reflecting on novices who do not have editing skill? And by your ending definition those like this person are not "real photographers" simply because of preferred choice of a natural style?
Posted by Keith Nelson on October 3, 2010 at 2:49 PM
Labels! Perhaps they are necessary for some marketing or niche purposes, or perhaps it is just photographers seeking to identify where they “belong”. While I am attracted to a certain genre of photos, their appeal to me seems to flow from the photographer’s eye, through the lens, and any post-processing to the finished product. While the attraction to Romanticist or Realist photography is very personal, so is my quest for that perfect capture.
What does tend to touch my ire are professed nature photographers who deny their post-capture edits, and market themselves and their photographs as authentic captures of the realism of nature. Ok, an example: like a grizzly standing in the middle of an Alaska river, mouth full of Salmon, not a drop of water on its fur, not as much as a single hair out of place on its snout, and a Salmon which couldn’t look happier at becoming a meal for this beast. Reality! Sure bear do catch salmon in Alaskan waters, but if you have ever watched nature at this level, you’ll notice that there is a lot of splashing, some blood, some scars of time involved. To capture such a scene, then post-process out the reality of the scene, and market that end result as an authentic UNEDITED view of this natural event, well, that is just wrong. Having said that, I’ll freely acknowledge there is money to be made marketing such… photography.
Discussion
33 repliesEither we are Romanticists ( Romanticism elevated the achievements of what it perceived as heroic individualists and artists, whose pioneering examples would elevate society. It also legitimized the individual imagination as a critical authority, which permitted freedom from classical notions of form in art. There was a strong recourse to historical and natural inevitability, a zeitgeist, in the representation of its ideas.)
Or we are Realists (Realism in the visual arts and literature refers to the general attempt to depict subjects "in accordance with secular empirical rules,"[1] as they are considered to exist in third person objective reality, without embellishment or interpretation. As such, the approach inherently implies a belief that such reality is ontologically independent of man's conceptual schemes, linguistic practices and beliefs, and thus can be known (or knowable) to the artist, who can in turn represent this 'reality' faithfully.).
Is it just me, or do these statements really seem to sum up our approaches to the craft?
I definitely find myself in the Romanticist camp, and it is readily apparent to me when I examine my "tastes" in photography, music, or literature.
So, where do you find yourself?
Interesting. Personally, I consider myself an artist. Not sure where that places me in your categories. It would help if you gave examples of photographers or artists that you think belong in your two categories.
Phillip, that is exceptionally funny! Perhaps you could let us know why you "feel" you are in the Romanticist camp.
As for artists that appear to me to be in each of the camps, I might put Marc Adamus, Anthony Vincent, Chip Phillips, Mark Metternich, Matt Anderson, and Michael Anderson in the Romanticist camp for some examples. I will be most interested if they see themselves there or the other, or neither.
Even your list of Romantisists are a little different than mine would be. Yes some are the same, but I would include Floris, Ian Cameron, Lon Overacker, Tony Kuyper ..... to name a few.
My perception of my work is Romanticist but I am sure if you ask a variety of people, I am sure most would say Realist....... but that is what art is all about...... right?
Realists on my list are Stan Rose, Gerry Gere, Steve Sirene, Bret Edge, Bill Fach. .....but maybe that is not how they perceive their work.
Just my thoughts..... BTW - I like them all!
By the way, there is nor right or wrong with this. They are just philosophies or approaches. I certainly am no expert in this, but came across this topic with some internet exploration and it intrigued me.
I would wager everyone's list would be somewhat different. In fact, I propose that at different times in our artistic explorations we may be both.
I would agree also, Eva with your inclusions of the "Realists" list. Except Stan's dunes work moves into the other category.
I agree with your comments on my response. Given the choice between the two options the Romanticist one is the better one. I do react to being placed in a category however, as you noticed, especially by myself!
So when it comes to my photographs, my goal is to touch something deep within the viewer. I'm going for an emotional (maybe even spiritual) response. A tall order, I know. I do want my photographs to accurately represent the scene but "third person objective reality" is not really what I'm after. So I will take some artistic license in post processing to try to achieve that goal. Romantic notions to be sure.
In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks.
--John Muir
Paul
Yes, you make perfect sense, Marie.
That's profound, Paul.
Vincent, a delicious offering of food for thought you stated! And you are exactly right!
If it doesn't move you set it aside, if you come back and it still doesn't move you ----- delete it
Great topic Morris
When I'm being a romantic, I'm shooting for the sheer entertainment of it, with sales potential not even on the horizon. If something from the efforts sells, neat. I'll take it. But that's not why I'm shooting. Much of the time selling the results would be like trying to push a rope.
When I'm being a realist, I'm sizing up the scene and conditions for sales potential. I have to drive the financial engine of our business, and I have a pretty good idea what sells and to whom, and what doesn't sell. I'm very calculated about framing and comp, colors and light, and almost always shoot for very specific commercial applications. Time and opportunity being limited I'll shoot the most likely to sell and the purely creative "play" falls by the wayside.
My heart is very much a Romantic (capital R) in purely artistic terms, probably shading more toward an Impressionist due to my taste for Monet. But that's secondary to being a Realist, or in my case it would more more accurately be called Documentarian.
Superb comparison! I'm afflicted with feather and hooks like you and have seen the same thing both in fish and viewers, but never made the connection.
Wow!
I think I lean toward the Realist Romanticist: doing my best to transform reality into an artistic interpretation. I'm so confused.
The second says it the best so far, I think.
But I would go even further and say that I'm not sure any photographer really and truly lives in the realist camp. Even documentary reportage photographers limit the field of view or use creative framing to create a message. Until 360 degree 3 dimensional representations of place can be created, any photograph is an alteration of reality. What we choose to omit is just as important to the image as what we choose to include.
I do not even try to think of things in this way. My only goal is to create elegant photographs.
Although the style of my work is solidly involved in capturing 2-dimensional momentary frames in time of what my eye see, I am not one of the many that would try to argue any other part of the style spectrum of photographic artists today is any less valid. As long as they present themselves up front honestly to their public audience for whatever that may be. And the latter is where I have criticism as many of those you are describing as Romanticists act as though they are afraid to admit such and instead say little or nothing apparently to allow their audience the imagination that such is what they actually captured in the manner of your Realists. Further some are predictably intent on arguing upon the impossibility of capturing reality with cameras apparently because to refute such somehow in their own mind legitamizes their own manipulations by being universal.
David
http://www.davidsenesac.com/david_philosophy1.html
http://www.davidsenesac.com
There is absolutely nothing wrong with his approach. He is free as an artist to bring his own vision to the image. The explanations on Romanticism and Realism are from Wickipedia, David. And yes, there is much more to read there and many other sources on both of these movements.
I suppose it will be history that decides where we are for the majority of photographic art in this country at this time.
Let me say that I did not know my posing of this question would create a minor firestorm as it has. I did not intend to suggest that these are the only approaches to our art. Only that the explanations I posted seemed to reflect the critiquing comments on images from the observations I have made while on this forum for the last couple of years. That the critiques seemed to me to come from a standpoint that the image may not have represented the scene faithfully, or from the other viewpoint, a critique that describes the same image as ethereal.
Again, let me state that my belief is that either of these approaches are valid. They are just different.
--P
Romanticism was an intellectual, artistic, literary, musical, and even scientific movement that began about 1750. It was a reaction to the constraints and mores of earlier Classicism which had emphasized harmony, order, clarity, and restraint. In short, a reaction to "rules" and aristocratic and social norms by which life and art were to be interpreted and lived. In particular, Romanticism valued intuition, feeling or emotion, as legitimate sources or expressions of knowledge. Artistically, it was characterized by disorder, the unexpected and exaggeration. In part, Romanticism was a reaction to the "science" of the Industrial Revolution.
In contrast, Realism developed about 1825-1850. It was a reaction to the supposed "chaos" of Romanticism, and valued reason (not human experience), truth and accuracy as legitimate sources and expressions of knowledge. Artistically, it was greatly advanced by the science of photography.
Romanticism can be described as: life as it should be (at its best). Realism can be described as: life as it is. Or from a photographic point of view: expression vs. depiction.
Now we all know that images have elements of both, and each of us is probably at a different point on that continuum. I, for example, prefer to photograph "natural" landscapes, rather than people or animals (action). But at the same time I seek to "express" by INTENTIONALLY adjusting composition (line, color, contrast of both color and light, and texture) to create an "impression." As my portfolio shows, I like strong contrast and saturation, even though some find such depiction or light "harsh." To me, there is value in both "soft" and "harsh" light, although I prefer the "stronger" variety.
It seems to me that the real "camps" are (1) those that are merely able to record or capture an image and (2) those that are also able to "express" or create an "impression" that moves others while doing so. The former are mere recorders and the latter are "artists" or "real photographers."
As some of my posts on this and other forums show, I seek to discover and rely upon "rules" or principles for "expression." Others may "express" more by intuition or pure experiential practice. To me, the discussion of Romanticists vs Realists is overdone and mis-directed. What we really should be focusing on is the sheer ability to express -- not debating the merits of how that expression develops or occurs.
Long before most on this board worked in any way digital, early versions of Photoshop by the mid 90s for the graphic arts community could perform much of what is done today though such was at times more tedious. And such was supported by telephone book sized textbooks used in challenging courses. The target of such work was often Kodak Photo CD scans or scans by early scanners used by 4-color offset printing labs. Those who work off scans, even the highest level drum scans must have considerable skill to adjust transparencies next to their computer on a light table to reasonably match what is on a raw scan. Quality drums scans for instance are often darker than a transparency so as not to blow out highlights with the expectation those performing processing will readjust levels etc. It is trivial for someone with such skills to manipulate images upping saturation/contrast etc including more sophisticated actions like combining images that are often performed in advertizing work.
So I don't understand what you are referring to by "merely able to record or capture an image" unless you are reflecting on novices who do not have editing skill? And by your ending definition those like this person are not "real photographers" simply because of preferred choice of a natural style?
What does tend to touch my ire are professed nature photographers who deny their post-capture edits, and market themselves and their photographs as authentic captures of the realism of nature. Ok, an example: like a grizzly standing in the middle of an Alaska river, mouth full of Salmon, not a drop of water on its fur, not as much as a single hair out of place on its snout, and a Salmon which couldn’t look happier at becoming a meal for this beast. Reality! Sure bear do catch salmon in Alaskan waters, but if you have ever watched nature at this level, you’ll notice that there is a lot of splashing, some blood, some scars of time involved. To capture such a scene, then post-process out the reality of the scene, and market that end result as an authentic UNEDITED view of this natural event, well, that is just wrong. Having said that, I’ll freely acknowledge there is money to be made marketing such… photography.