When is a Photo not a Photo

Over the past 12 months I have been looking and admiring the work of a number of photographers, but I have found myself asking, what on the face of it, a simple question - when is a photo not a photo, but a piece of art work? I am of course talking about the many images that comprise of a series of several shots, combined into one, images that have been through the PS process and now look as if some one has a million pound budget or access to some very strange landscapes, and so the list goes on. Well this is what I think, for what it's worth. A photograph, should be just that, an image capturing a moment in time. Yes I still think it can be enhanced in post production, as the camera cannot hope to capture what our eyes see and our creative mind envisioned, but basically that should be that. I think once we start combining images to make a new and unreal world or creation, then we should be talking about photo art. I am in no way saying that one is more worthy than the next, but I do think they should be viewed and judged separately. I was looking at an image of a lighthouse with a large number of gulls flying around it, against a wonderful sky. This image had won a photography contest, landscape I think, but it came out later that the image was made up of a number of separate images. The sky was from one shoot, several gull shots were combined and then the light house was introduced. Now all of this was done wonderfully, but! can you tell me the skill and patience that would be needed to capture the image in it's true form is the same as the computing and visionary/artistic skills needed to create the photo art? As I have said already, I love both aspects of the creative process, but I do believe they should be judged separately, as two distinctive art forms. This brings me on to a similar subject, wedding photography competitions. How many times have you seen a photo with the heading wedding photographer of the year, or some such, depicting an image which could not possibly have been taken at any real wedding event. We know and indeed the photographers openly admit the photos were taken with models and studio lighting, or other lighting control measures that would not be possible at any real event. This also applies to some nature photography that I have seen where we all know the shot was taken in a studio environment and not in the wild. Now I am not belittling any of the images, or indeed the creative skills required to create and capture them, but once again I do feel that these images should be viewed separately from the work carried out in the field, under real conditions. The wedding photographer who can create stunning images, of everyday people in normal lighting conditions is by far the better creative thinker than the photographer who has all the time in the world to work with a very attractive and slim model with plenty of time to set up the lighting just right. Also the nature photographer who spent hours, if not days, waiting for his subject to be lit just right and capture a unique image of a subject is someone who should be rewarded on their achievements and not judged against an image created under 'special conditions'. I love all forms of creative art, but perhaps photography should be looking more closely at what we do, how we do it and then how we judge it.