Photography just comes naturally to the master artist
Both can love photography, but to the artist, it comes more naturally, and the non-artist has to work a little harder. Unfortunately, the non-artist may never become the artist. They may never pick up that almost instinctual vision.
I think it also goes beyond professional vs. amateur, as certainly some who are paid for their work must work very hard to get it, learn their photography by rote, and do not necessarily have an artist's flow or produce ideal results. Then, there are those who do not receive pay for their work, but their end results are more effortlessly attained than the paid professional. On the flipside to that, I'm sure there are natural artists who have gone on to become successful professionals.
I guess the moral of the story is to just shoot, and if you're still at the point of thinking too heavily about your gear, setting up the shot, or tinkering in post production, then maybe you're not at the point where you've mastered the "art" of photography.
Hm. I get what you're saying, and I do believe there are people who have a natural eye. For them, photography does seem to come easy. But somehow I don't think they're free to get that perfectly composed shot until the technical side is second nature to them. Composition is more than just framing and lines and shapes--depth of field and focus play a big part as well, and until you have control of those tools (and others) your pictures can still look like crap, no matter how artistic you are. Would your argument hold up in a different medium, I wonder? Could you have amazing artistic vision and expect to pick up a paintbrush with little to no knowledge of the medium and produce a Van Gogh or Magritte, for instance?
It seems like there needs to be a marriage of technical details and artistry to get a really masterful and well-composed image. Some of the most amazing photographers I know (or know of) are very careful about how they set up their shots. I have no doubt they can shoot from the hip and get amazing images, but I can appreciate how much thought and planning can go into their very artistic images, and I don't think it makes them any less artistic.
And to prove your point, I've also seen photographers who seem to have mastered lighting and camera, but their images are just so...blah. Or...fake. I can't think of another word. One local photographer here comes to mind, and he loves to shoot beautiful women, but they're always so contorted and weird. And not in an artistic way. It's like he's trying to shoot high fashion magazine models, but can't quite pull it off. (How rude of me, eh?)
I've probably missed your point. But I will say that I struggled for a long time to learn my camera and even longer to develop an "eye" (still working on it). Two books that gave me hope that I could be an artist (because I couldn't quite see myself as one) were The Talent Code and Talent Is Overrated, both recommended by Roberto Valenzuela, a pretty amazing wedding photographer who was initially told not to quit his day job because he sucked so bad. He theorizes that you can learn to be an artist through practice, which is what he did. And what I'm trying to do.
Phew! Sorry about the long response. Good post though because it made me think! And I hope it didn't come off as argumentative or confrontational--I just write to find out what I think sometimes...