Quote Originally Posted by DannL
I must disagree with the reference to painting and the process of painting. The process of Painting and the process of Photography have absobutely nothing in common. Even though photography came about because of the desire of a one indivivdual to simplify painting due to the lack of personal skill.
The process are obviously different: one is based on light-sensitive material, while the other isn't. That is not my point.

Quote Originally Posted by DannL
If you doctor your photography to the point ultimately misrepresenting the subject, then you're an "artist of sorts". If your photographs represent the subject accurately, then your'e a damn fine photographer and you should be proud. I want to be a "damn good photographer". If that doesn't work out, then I'll settle for "artist of sorts".
My point is exactly the opposite of what you're saying (that being a good photographer=making true statements). I would like to offer as counterexample the fact that you can make true statements with paintings. Other counterexample: if you are making a photo that is not "accurate" in your terms, for e.g. a false color Ektachrome Infrared shot of a landscape, then you can be still a great photographer.