[dakwegmo]

One of the things that intrigues me about the various attempts to redefine "photography" in the digital age, is that most new definitions exclude every photograph ever shot on film. The idea that photography is only about an image taken directly from the camera is utterly ridiculous when applied to film. Film has to be post processed in order to even see the images that were captured. Photographers have always manipulated the developing and printing process to achieve the desired results. Why shouldn't digital photographers receive the same latitude when processing their images? And if the camera image is the key "without adjusting brightness, contrast, sharpness" does this mean that these adjustments made within camera are acceptable but something other than a photograph is created when processed through a RAW converter? I am inclined to agree with Major_Small, only you can define when an image becomes something other than a photo.