Wha! No, Bsteph, you seem to have the wrong end of the stick. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I am suggesting that general perception (that of non artists) of a photograph.. is fairly clear cut.. ie an obvious facsimile of the "real" world in 2D. If however (as it was suggested by others) a photo of a painting should also be considered, than a rethink would be necessary! For my part I'm nearer the idea of general perception. It seems so are you. A photo skin on a model is still a photo skin. (To me). That example.. and yours is obvious, and fairly clear cut. But cutting and pasting photo images so that the work is seemless is not quite so easily defined. That I believe is where the debate stems... How much digital or dark room modification renders a Photograph into somthing else... irrespective of any gallery accepting the work. The earlier notes that I have posted above should clear up any doubts about where I stand... If you have the time to read them. JW :o)

If we go into the area of photographs of paintings, what we are realy doing is stepping into a "hall of mirrors" and trying to decide if only the first reflection is true or not. (And we all know, that only the second reflection and subsequent "even numbers" are true LOL). While I agree that the concept of free posting is self governing.. taken to conclusion.. Why then catagorize at all? Is it fair to say "The Audience Expects"? I think so. But! If this is the case, then this issue is more important to resolve than first it seemed. ... Here we go again.. LOL JW :o)

Hello Michelle You're exactly right about these areas being "subjective". And we don't have to compromise our opinions in these matters. After all the world would be dull without new ideas. My main concern in this, is that some inscrutable people use philosophy debates as a means of gaining respect, with no tallent. Take the idea of a "Scewed up piece of paper" being labled "art" at TATE MODERN. (Actually happened) This can only damage us, as artists/photographers. JW :o)

No it isn't... After all warping and pasting will bring a picture beyond recognition.

Another issue here that is relevent in all of these galleries is that, any opinions here are likely to be those from "artists"... be they digital or manual (photo or rendered).

I suspect that the majority of others would not accept "any altered image as a photograph" so I stand by many of the comments above.

This then may make artists say.. "who cares what they think"?
But whether we like it or not; non artist opinion does shape much of the world around us.
A "photograph" is a specific name that is associated with expected imagery. If this is baulked too much you'll loose your target audience as already mentioned above (Misha883).
I have done the apprenticeship in darkrooms to the point of mixing chemicals (a long suffering job). In many ways Photoshop is replicating the dark room but not all of it. Who wants to replicate the wait, and the chemicals?

As artists we should be responsible; and our "out bursts" controlled.
"Anything goes" is an innocent enough phrase, but it leaves the door open for the "charlatan" who will show what "anything goes" realy means. The artist community gets damaged yet again.
JW :o)

In regards to the B&W image.. I would have to say that while no one wold deny that there is an image here.. It is unlikely that it would be classed as a photograph simply because it doesn't look like one. Don't forget the a massive amount of data has been distroyed here. Filtering is another subject that can raise artist's temperatures. Bear in mind that I quite like filters... Say a poor sighted man is asked to wear some glasses.. This would seem to improve his photo-sensitive skills. If, however the glasses were smeared with gel... While he may experience a more psychadelic outlook, few would say that photo-sensory usefulness is true. Some heavr filters may create art but may distroy the accepted view of "what is a photograph" I guess the least a photograph has to be, is representative of normal vision.. ie not drink or drug induced or that of impared vision. JW :o)

Well we're into philosophy here I suppose..
If you consider a photograph just the light to emulsion then as a purist virtually nothing will pass these days.
Almost everything is edited even if it's just been cropped.

That would mean however that all those terrible "snaps" that everyone has to suffer aka- "bad holiday pics", "red eyed party drunks" and "jam faced children" actually do qualify. Since the perpertrators of these "crimes" wouldn't dream of improving their photo (or reducing the number of snaps).

As a photographer and imager, I would say that a true photograph would alow editing such as tones, levels, and unsharp masks. But exclude cuts and pastes.. The latter I class as Graphic Design ground.
Unfortunately this opens my question...

When "granny's" head is pasted on to a picture of the pet dog... Have we got a budding designer or a new age slide show bore. LOL

Before anyone gets upset.. I accept that ther are good images of Parties, Children and Holidays... But we all have suffered at some time eh?

Cheers Joe :o)