Yup, describes my pursuit exactly.
I think the point here is that we likely all disapprove of a P&S shooter paying a person to correct their mistakes, enhancing the photo (even to the point of completely changing it), and then trying to pass it off as though they are a professional photographer. It dilutes the value of the term "photographer" and is insulting to those who do their homework, try hard to make things right from the get go, expand their horizons through either personal challenges or external pressures and take pride in their work.
In my opinion, there can be a fine line there between a photographer and a Photoshopper. I think that ultimately, we don't need or desire to insult those who do Photoshop heavily, we just don't want them to be representative of what the term photographer has historically meant to the general populace. When a person takes a photograph and then heavily manipulates it with Photoshop it is no longer a photograph and should not be considered or marketed as such, instead it should be considered digital artistry, or some other term. The problem is setting boundaries on the alterations, getting rules set down that the majority of the interested parties can agree on.
Regardless of the effort I make on using my computer to make watercolor like, acrylic like and oil like prints, they are not watercolors, acrylics or oils. In my sig you will find a link to my galleries, one of which is to my digital artistry, which is not created using Photoshop.
Originally posted by legacyb4 I guess I align closer with the 'purist' philosophy. For me, part of the 'art' behind photography is framing and composing through the viewfinder, using the various lenses and associated A/Tv settings to paint the picture, and minimal PP afterwards except to make up for shooting error (under/over exposure, cropping if absolutely necessary, etc.).