Technology vs. Purist photography..

RDKirk wrote in post #8857163
If the image started in a camera, it's a photograph.

It starts as a photograph but might not end up being one.

There is a point (in processing) at which it ceases to be a photograph and becomes something else (art, monstrosity, garbage). That point all depends on your viewpoint.

Im quite sure I ( or a number of people here ) could take a photograph and perform a few actions/filters etc and end up with something that bears absolutely no relation to a photograph within 5 mins.

example...

before:

RDKirk wrote in post #8857163
If the image started in a camera, it's a photograph.

I agree, and for those insistent on calling it something else we could take a page from Man Ray's playbook and call them Kirkographs, brealographs, or whatever we want. I know that Rayographs didn't start in the camera but what the heck if they want us to call it something else...

There are only a few venues in which anyone's opinion of "is it or is it not a photograph" on this issue matters--photographic competitions, for instance.

Right now, in Professional Photographers of America competitions (which do have separate categories for photography and digital art), if it started in a camera, it's a photograph.