lotusphoto wrote:
someone who takes photography to a higher level can be a little proud of themselves, but go to a camera club sometime and see what active amatuers do

i find this a amusing statement , i know 2 amateurs.   1. has a canon canonette he bought new and a darkroom .  he shoots 2 girl outdoor nudes and sells 40 11x14 prints from each shoot at $300.00 each.    the second shoots children only  with a leica m7  and is the best i have ever seen.

Dez wrote:
photographers vs snapshooter: What seperates the two?

looks like.... 'vs'

PapaVic Photography wrote:
Certain fine art photography (Adam's "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, 1941" comes to mind), some classic/iconic portraiture and most photojournalism essentially consists of snapshops taken by photographers.

That photograph was significantly manipulated in the darkroom The "black" sky was a 1000% burn. The final print does not look like the original negative.

It was a snapshot in the sense that Adams was driving by, saw the image, and only had a few minutes to set up his equipment and take the photograph.

Stephen Dawson wrote:
A snapshooter can't be bothered with attaching a lens to their camera.

Lens already part of phone