No, it is a very inclusive definition. When you start saying that some amount of manipulation of a photograph makes it not a photograph, who is to decide what that point is? Everyone is going to have a different idea of where the line is drawn, or whether it should be drawn at all. People have been manipulating and altering photographs ever since photography was invented. There's room for a wide variety of photographic techniques. You don't have to like them all, but you shouldn't deny the validity of ones you don't like.

Instead of going into a tirade that can be torn down, just ask a couple of questions:

From this:
I think if it starts out as a photograph, it remains a photograph.
When a painter takes a picture and then paint with a real canvas and paint brush, is his work still a photograph since it started with a photograph?
How about three dimensional objects recreated from pictures, like mechanical parts reproduction or even a sculpture, is that also a photograph since it started not from one but multiple pictures?

Going onto the digital now...
If one takes a picture to paint over it instead of using the physical tools of a painter, is the final result a photograph? Did you know that a darkroom (camera obscura) refers to a real room where painters were using their tools to paint on canvas a reverted picture?
Then using pictures we can create 3D models of an object so, is the wire-frame created still a picture?
How about virtual reality real estate tours created with arrays of photograph, is this still a photographs?

The statement "I think if it starts out as a photograph, it remains a photograph" reveal more a lack of information, an ineptitude to comprehend that digital photography while used to produce great photographs is also an open doors to so many fields that it transcends the original attempt of capturing a moment in time.

No, it is a very inclusive definition. When you start saying that some amount of manipulation of a photograph makes it not a photograph, who is to decide what that point is? Everyone is going to have a different idea of where the line is drawn, or whether it should be drawn at all. People have been manipulating and altering photographs ever since photography was invented. There's room for a wide variety of photographic techniques. You don't have to like them all, but you shouldn't deny the validity of ones you don't like.

No, this is not about distortion of really, well, it is but that is not the what gets me going here...

It seems that now 'photographers' (I would call them con artists not photographers) seem to want to charge extra for simple things like minor retouching whitening teeth by example. I was aware of it before but now it the envelope is pushed further with 'slimming down' option, in effect altering a picture in such a way that reality has no place left.

The problem is that things like teeth whitening, slimming red eye removal etc are not necessarily simple things to do, nor should they be expected to be done free of charge. The bloke that mows my lawn doesn't trim my hedges too, and certainly not for nothing. All of this takes time and to a "professional" photographer, that is money. I happily embellish/alter/manipulate... images for clients if that is what they want and, more importantly, are happy to pay for. If the client is happy I am happy. They will come back and they will refer people to my door. I recently had a client bring in a photo of her mother and stepfather's recent wedding. This particular shot really appealed to them but her mother wanted her cleavage slightly reduced and her new husband's shirt to have numerous sweat patches removed (caused by humid honeymoon location, not his bride's cleavage). There were also unsightly background distractions and a noticeable colour cast. All up this took me some hours but the client was delighted with the result and her mother (so she told me several days later) was so pleased she was moved to tears. So... to me this was a clear case of WIN, WIN. And, of course I expected to get paid for it.



I am really irked by this as offering this (slimming) as part of a default package. It is wrong in my opinion.

Your thoughts?

No, this is not about distortion of really, well, it is but that is not the what gets me going here...

don't know what happened above....
It seems that now 'photographers' (I would call them con artists not photographers) seem to want to charge extra for simple things like minor retouching whitening teeth by example. I was aware of it before but now it the envelope is pushed further with 'slimming down' option, in effect altering a picture in such a way that reality has no place left. I am really irked by this as offering this (slimming) as part of a default package. It is wrong in my opinion.

Your thoughts?