An Artist's worth

A painter paints, a designer designs, a photographer photographs.
Whilst the concept is simple enough, we are what we can do, what if the resources to do what we do aren't available.  More so, what if we're expected to do what we can do, without the financial backing to simply get enough resources to do the work.
But as a photographer, you have a camera, isn't that enough?

Well fellow artist, James Gould-Bourn (graphic designer) decided to parody the responses of the commissioning people (all of whom say the same basic thing). 

One of my more favourite comments was:
"You don't just need money to maintain what you build, you need money to build it, too. You can't promise construction workers that they'll get paid once the tower is done. That shows a lack of management skills."

While I do have a camera and I can take a photo. The question is, how much of my time and skill are you willing to barter with to get the photo from the camera to you via editing process to you?

Roses are red, the sky is blue...

Or are they?

Whist beginning my new self training into Lightroom editing a thought had occurred to me.
The old argument of if the sky is actually blue or if it's another perceivable color in the end is kind of irrelevant if your perception of any given color is only limited to the vocabulary used to describe it.

For instance a color blind person who can see the gamut of hues may perceive say red as what others would see as grey, but if from birth if the word that used to describe it is still red, then for all the color blind person knows (unless they do a test for it) is that IS red. 

So to say that the sky is blue could also be for some people inaccurate but the argument persists that unless we all see and use the same words for the same thing, there is room for anomalies in the argument. 

Oh, and the sky is Totally Purple!  :P