Quote:

I'm sure there are specific definitions/guidelines that exist?



In my opinion, a picture is NOT a photogrpah or just a fake photogrpah if wasn't taken with a camera, and/or if those features was manipulated what is possible to achive during a shot with a rigth equipment and a necessary skill.

For example, a motion blure is achivable during a shot, adding it in Photoshop is make the picture a fake photo.
The right darkness/brightness is achivable with a correct light measuring and camera set up, adjust it in a PS is cheating and make the picture a fake photo.
The contrast or saturation can be achive choosing the rigt film and/or right phototechnic such as pull or push technic, or set the digital camera before the shot. Change the contrast or saturation in a PS is make the picture a fake photogrpah.
A disturbing subject in the background can be move over or choose an angle of view to not show in a frame. Clone it out in PS is cheating and make the picture a fake photograph.
Make a picture with other thing than a camera (scanner, computer, typewriter, nailgun, brush, paintspray, rake or showel, pencile, cryon, milk chocolate, etc.) is not photography, and the picture should not be called as photography. It is will misslead the viewers! (I know that is the idea in many cases!)

People are have some basic idea what is a photography, because many people taking pictures, and all of them using cameras! So if a picture called photograph, they believe it was taken a camera! But if it wasn't, actually misslead the viewers. Misslead the viewers actually is a chetaing.

But I have to point out, ANY kind of picture, whatever how it was created, can be an ART!

(just please do not misslead the viewers.)

I shoot on Fuji Velvia and Astia, with Nikon F6 and Pentax Z1p with Sigma zoom lenses.