I think it's very difficult to find any metric that will mean something consistently.
Jeff Spirer
My own metrics is that I will consider as photography any (digital) manipulation that can produced in the darkroom - however complex and exacting for the darkroom operator - and/or using light sensitive material.
This is quite a loose definition with a lot of grey areas. It would exclude computer-generated images but include color solarization. It would include layering of images but exclude most of the watercolour-type PS filters, etc...
This is not to say that what falls out of this definition is not acceptable. But in my view, it falls into the realm of graphic arts.
For instance, many years ago, a number of PF'ers objected when I posted a rather extravagant image of a tulipe. It was created beginning with a color negative scanned into a digital positive, then solarized on Photoshop and inverted back into a negative. This negative image was printed on paper and converted into an 8x10 transparency using acrylic medium. The transparency was then enlarged on color paper with an 8x10 enlarger.
At the time, I considered that since photographic material were the source and end product, it should be considered as falling in the realm of photography. I would not consider it so today because of the intermediate processess involving acrylic medium.
Guy
