I think that the big problem we have is the strict application of the definition that was quoted from Websters (Although really I as a Brit recognise the Oxford English Dictionary as the correct definition for all English words, but cannot access it easily to quote it). As it stands at the current moment in time there is not, and never has been a Photographic system that did NOT require some level of processing, between operating the shutter (or other means of exposing the sensor to light) and having a useable image that you can view. All of the classic processes of the 19th Century, Daguerreotype, Calotype, etc. Or the various film types developed during the 20th Century. Even the latest electronic recording systems that have brought us into the 21st Century (although mostly devised in the 20th C), they all have to undergo some form of processing after exposure to create a viewable image. Even Polaroid instant prints, require chemical processing, which can be affected by the temperature to some degree. We still even have to make decisions on how our out of camera JPEG images will be processed, although we limit ourselves by making those decisions in advance of the actual exposure. So a definition of a photograph that doesn't allow for "processing the image" is a pretty poor definition in my opinion.