“You say tomato, I say tomahto”

There’s a discussion going on over at my photography clubs flickr group.

When is a photograph no longer a photograph?

 Mark posted:  Is there a point at which post editing makes an image no longer a photograph? I have wondered about this for some time and have sought opinions from others. I suspect the ultimate answer to my question is, ‘it depends.’

I came across the following news article where a news photographer was suspended for splicing two photographs together.
www.petapixel.com/2012/02/03/newspaper-photographer-suspe…
The change seems very insignificant.

The debate has varied, which is not surprising because our club is compromised a very varied group of individuals (which makes for a great club).  I answered the question this way:  I think the argument is more about classification within photography, i.e. journalistic, digital art, or Henry’s “Non-Existant Imagery (I like that ), etc. Because underneath it all, if the image(s) is obtained with a camera (or like device), it is a photograph.  And as the discussion continued, for some reason, I started to think of shoes.  You have sneakers to stilettos.  They both look very different, are worn for entirely different purposes, one makes your feet hurt and one is to aid in your foot’s comfort . . . but they are both still SHOES.

 A photograph right?

  and it’s still a photograph . . . with a twist.