photoshop and photography: when is it real?

I was reading this article/blog that talks about the line between a true photography versus a digitally manipulated image.

So, where is that fine line? As a photographer, I'd have to compose a shot extremely well to NOT edit my photos. This goes for working in the darkroom as well. There are times where I have to dodge and burn, create contrast, and plan development time. Maybe I'm stretching it a little, but aren't those still a means of "manually" trying to get an ideal image?

Everyone wants to see a great photograph. They are drawn to well composed shots and technically sound images. I don't think there is anything wrong with using Photoshop to manipulate the image.

I was taking a digital photography class last semester, and one of our projects called us to use Photoshop to create a collage type of photo. Basically, we took a group of photos and used Photoshop to make it one large cohesive photo.

While I went with more of a David Hockney style of collaging, there were others that created some amazing photos that were seamless; kind of like the seagulls and lighthouse the article mentioned:

Everything in the photograph belongs to the photographer. He uses the camera as his main medium and uses the computer to enhance them. So, should this image be discredited as a true photo?

Painters, graphic designers, sculptors, etc all use their imagination, but base it on some aspects of reality. As time passes, new art movements emerge and move away from merely portraying what the artist sees, or true reality in this case.

Photography was initially to capture what the photographer saw through the lens. Through time, the nature of photography has changed as technology advanced. Why not utilize the medium this culture is beginning to embrace?

Sure, the photograph above is not a one shot wonder, but I wouldn't place it in a different category. It's the digital age. Embrace it.