What does Photography mean when it pertains to camera and computer arts?

I am not quite sure of the context of this question, but I
am guessing that this in an inquiry into how the computer and other technologies affect
the "meaning" of photography.  While there are certainly many differences in photography
today, my own opinion is that the meaning of photography has not changed nearly as much
as people believe.

One hundred and fifty years ago,
photography was a new technology. While most embraced the new art, there were probably
people who were skeptical or suspicious of it at that time, concerned that images might
be manipulated or that a photograph might not represent "truth" because people were
posed or scenes were staged.  And in fact, this did happen, I'm sure.  The photographer
has always been able to create his or her own reality through the selection of the
subject, through various techniques used in developing photographs, and through the
staging of what was to be photographed. These are what have made photography an art
form, not merely a mechanical recording of what was before the
photographer.

Today, with digital cameras and the
wherewithal to manipulate digital images on the computer, we have a difference that
seems to me to be one only of degree.  The photographer may still stage a scene, imposes
his or her own vision of reality through the process of selecting what to photograph,
and is able to manipulate what is photographed with software as opposed to manipulating
in the darkroom.  This, too, is artistry, artistry accomplished more easily today, but
nevertheless, still artistry through the manipulation of
elements.

I do think that when we view photography as a
form of reporting, rather than as an art, we run into more difficulties than we did
prior to digital photography.  There was a bit of a scandal a few years ago when a
popular news magazine was discovered to have manipulated an image of someone on its
cover, and I am sure this happens more frequently than we know. Nevertheless,
photography as reporting also relied on manipulations prior to our digital age, so
again, this seems to be a question of degree.

Another
perspective you might consider on photography as reporting is to compare it to the use
of words to report events.  The process is quite similar.  Reporters make choices about
what to say and what not to say.  An extensive interview is not usually reported word
for word, but is presented as a series of selections of quotes from the subject,
sometimes in context, but quite often not.

So, whether one
considers photography as art or photography as reporting, the digital age is not what
has allowed the photographer to construct an alternate reality.  This has always been
the case. It is far easier to do today, but the ability to do so has always been with
us.