Originally posted by filmmaster have to skip in a bit, but there are things taken out of context from all of us.
How does one claim to be a professional photographer, when once relies solely upon photo editing to make an image? When basic skill and knowledge is replaced simply by the photo shop AI program...
"
Professional" simply means "
engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career" - i.e. doing it for money. It doesn't mean the professional is (or has to be) especially skilled in that activity (though if you were paying for their services, you'd hope they might be).
Regarding the photo editing aspect, it's not quite as you describe it. They're not relying
solely on editing... The photographer had to consider the aesthetics of the image - both as seen by their eye and in their mental vision of the finished article - and capture the photograph as a starting point before they began working on it in Photoshop... so even if the camera was on full auto, some
artistic ability was required at the very least. Then, they had to be able to use Photoshop to make the edits (which is a whole bunch of skills in itself). Even if you or I don't like the original photo and/or the subsequent editing of it (including AI "improvements"), the act of photography - "
the art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces" - was an essential part of the workflow.
There
are folks making heavy use of post-processing and editing in their photography, sure - but plenty of us use it far more subtly, and do so routinely. Even those who shoot straight-from-camera, unedited JPEGs benefit from post-processing - it's just that the camera is doing it for them (and that's fine too). Different strokes for different folks... it's all good. How someone else produces their photographic artwork really isn't any concern of mine. It doesn't prevent you and I from doing things the way we prefer. Where's the problem?