This does keep coming up.
Let's ignore the fact that the title "director of photography" is commonly taken by anyone who shot a cellphone clip that appeared on the news, and take things at least a bit more seriously than that. Unless the role involved running a crew numbering eight or ten qualified people, with credits on productions that went to a wide release, nobody has any business taking that title.
The word "cinematographer" either means much the same thing, or is so broad as to be meaningless, depending on context.
"Cameraman" could mean anything from news upward. "Lighting cameraman" is, I get the impression, an old BBC term that begs total incomprehension outside the UK and even within it is often misapplied; it can sometimes imply a very specific circumstance which doesn't really exist anymore, and in that sense risks accusations of posing in much the same way as calling oneself a director of photography.
Therefore, what credit are people who do wall-to-wall low-end youtube crap supposed to take?
Not that I'm particularly hungry to be associated with most of the stuff I do, but if they really want to, there has to be some sort of title above your name, fer chrissake. I have occasionally settled upon the phrase "camera and lighting" on the basis that it's purely descriptive and I'm not aware of any preexisting claim on it having a special meaning.