Some people will assert that there is a difference between a photographer and a person with a camera. It's an easy argument to make and I basically agree with it. However, in my mind, I don't make that distinction. A camera is a machine that captures images and anyone can capture a neat image. Some people are adept with the machine so a higher percentage of the images they capture are more interesting than usual. But I've seen great images come from cameras operated by children and even lifeless machines.

What I'm getting at is that I value the end image more than the concept of photography and what is "right" or "wrong" about the process. If I feel like trying to work like a photographer and keep images pure/untouched from the moment the shutter trips, then I do that. If I feel like cropping it down to something completely different and tweaking colors to the point of utterly obscuring every hint of the truth (In the context of the moment the photo was taken) then I'll do that too.

I try to create interesting images, but in the end I don't really give a shit: I don't delete much and I upload everything I don't delete. If an image evokes something in you that is good for you, then I'm glad. If you don't like an image, well... I'm just a person with a camera. :P

The product is unequivocally yours and the process is unequivocally mine. The artist Zdzisław Beksiński summed up the way I feel about all the stuff I do when he said of his work "I cannot conceive of a sensible statement on painting". Indeed. I would also assert that nobody has to conceive of a sensible statement about any art they do.