unless someone does the whole thing... they arent "a photographer" ...
making negatives is ez,
retouching is ez,
making photographs/prints is ez,
but unless you do it all you are just a exposure monkey, a film processor, retoucher, or printer ...
it would be very ez to take this to another extreme and suggest that
unless you mixed your own chemistry and emulsions from scratch,
coated your materials,
used a large format camera
you arent real photographers ...
(or maybe you even have to make your own compounded chemicals and paper and grind your own lenses too? )
kodak and others lowered the bar in the 1880s, it wasnt the dadaists ...
lucky for most people with a camera the jin is OUT of the bottle.
over the years there has been a small grass roots effort here on apug to exclude people who
don't process or print or whatever ... themselves. people who scan film or shoot chromes
or use a lab, use LOMO or HOLGA or lo-fi cameras have been deemed unworthy by a vocal few.
the view that a "photographer" has to do every step of the process ( expose, process, and print )
use specific equipment, print in silver, or pt/pd, or wet plate, or calotype, or shoot only landscapes
or representational images &c is part of this skewed idea that any less than everything is barely worth mentioning,
while they are on the path to making great art, they fall short.
i find this whole idea to be narrow minded but then again, i think the movements that shook the artworld
were important. and that a folded piece of paper, piece of sushi or a found object,
or something painted by thomas kinkade can be considered art just as much as a boring grande landscape
or overdone portrait or hackneyed image printed in silver or PT/PD or on tin or glass.
what do i know, im part exposure monkey and part photographer