To me the most basic definition of photographic skill is to both see the image, especially in the wild, and actually being able to capture it. Sure you can sweeten or manipulate the image in post, but that's not the topic I want to discuss.

Right after I got my first digital I found a great image I wanted to capture, but from where I was sitting at the time I couldn't get the shot and I couldn't move without messing it up. I had to give a friend of mine at the time the camera and told them what to shoot. I had him take a few shots and the best of them was got was 80-90% of what I had in mind.

In reality the image is fairly trivial, but it brings up an issue. Where does the artist end?

Every time I hear someone compliment that image it chaps my butt to this day.

Part of that, I know is envy.

That picture was MINE. I had it in my head, I knew how it had to be shot, but

I couldn't get it myself, I had to have someone else do it.

On a certain level it isn't my picture, it is his picture, he pushed the button.

On the other hand, I have never seen or heard of him taking another creative photograph. An annoyingly a high percentage of the other times I have handed him the same camera to take a picture the results (normally seen too late to re-shoot) were screwed up because of carelessness. I realized that the carelessness was at least partially my own for not exerting sufficient control and oversight.

I have never been a real fan of those "Artists" who's art seems to be telling the staff in their studio what to do and signing off on the results. But I am beginning to come around some.

When you actively have a subject pose it is clearly a collaboration. This becomes especially clear when the subject is an experienced model.

When the others taking part in the creation are unseen, when are they assistance, assistants, collaborators or the actual artists?