In the years I've been here, I can't think of anyone who is less interested in defining what constitutes a photograph, or a "real" photographer than John. His work is always evolving, often in ways which many would argue make them something other than "real" photographs. His posts frequently involve embracing the options film photography offers, rather than limiting what it can (or should) be. His response to a post defining "real" photographers in a way which would apply to only a handful of members was spot on. Some of the best photographers I know, here and elsewhere, wouldn't be considered "real" photographers under the confined definition under discussion. However, their passion, commitment to excellence, and vision are better than many "pros". They're fully deserving of being called "real photographers", if they so choose.