Photos vs. Images

Recent conversations on various blogs and photography web sites have centered around the concept of speaking of 'Photos' vs. 'Images', and this seems to have suddenly made a connection for me in the somewhat-related debate of 'Pure' vs. 'Manipulated' photos.

After thinking about this for a bit, I've decided to adopt the following (at least for my use, and I invite comments pro and con):

1) Photos are the raw stuff of photography. That is, most folks' expectations when someone speaks of a 'photo' is that manipulations, if any, are slight, and do not change in any real way the content of the image. This, of course, is subject to interpretation, but I like the guidelines for manipulated photos posted at photo.net (although I'm not certain I agree with the particular one concerning perspective correction, since one can achieve this in the field with a shift lens, it seems incongruous to ban this in the 'dimroom').

2) Images are what you intend to show, at the end of the day. This might include photos that have had mild color correction, and sharpening applied, or ones that have had wholesale cutting and pasting applied. The latter have been referred to in print publications as 'photo illustrations'.

Given the above definitions, I reject the notion that speaking about images is somehow snobbish, or pushing the idea that one person's 'images' are somehow better than another's 'photos'. Instead, I find using 'image' to refer to a photo that I've spent some time on, and considered polished enough to be shared with others, less contrived than 'manipulated photo' or 'photo illustration'.

Finally, what do we do with the term 'photography?' I'd say leave it alone, and let it be stand for what it has always stood for -- the act of making images. This encompasses the whole process, from the original composition, capture, selection, post-processing, and printing and/or posting.