A magazine's reproduction of a photography has had no obstacles to pass as a photograph in people's minds, so why bother with a inkjet printout?
They don't pass as photographs, they pass as image reproductions (the typographically printed form of it).
If you look at those obsolete evil dictionary definitions again, you'll notice that they don't differentiate images by their purpose (which is the same, no matter if it's a painting or a photograph or a laser print or a statue - they convey to you a visual representation of something). They differentiate images by the method used to produce them. If this is the criterion, then there's no method in saying that an inkjet print is a photograph. It denies the reason of existence of the terms used to differentiate prints by the method they're produced. Just the term "prints" would then be enough.
But then there's nothing glamorous about the term "print". "Photograph" sounds more arteestec, and that's why who have people insisting in making this confusion of terms. "I'm a photographer too". ROFL. A digital camera is nothing but a glorified palm computer with builtin webcam. The very first result of the image taking process is a file on a memory card. You transfer that file to a bigger computer then print it on a computer printer. That's it. It's computing.
com-pute (kuhm pyuet') v. <-put-ed, -put-ing> n.
v.i.
4. to use a computer or calculator.Just live with it, folks. ;-)
cheers, caveman ;-)
