Has the line between photography and digital designing been blurred?

Golden fall

Now in the digital age, many people are now using the 'digital dark room' to process their photos. In fact, the digital age could have been the best thing that could have happened to photography. I myself use the digital dark room for processing. But, what is photography? "Photography is the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a radiation-sensitive medium, such as a photographic film, or an electronic sensor. Light patterns reflected or emitted from objects activate a sensitive chemical or electronic sensor during a timed exposure, usually through a photographic lens in a device known as a camera that also stores the resulting information chemically or electronically. Photography has many uses for business, science, art, and recreational purposes." That is the definition in Wikipedia. So with that said, should digital manipulation be kept to a limit, or should it be used fully to create great 'pictures' even though the process of taking the shot itself wasn't so great? What do I mean by this? I mean, there was a recent article I read on Digital Camera Magazine about 'adding' a rainbow to your landscape shots. To be honest I was actually disappointed to see the article. In my honest opinion, photography is the art of taking a photo and capturing that moment in time forever let it be for business, art or recreational purposes with a camera. To actually be able to add an important element into your photo that wasn't there at first just distorts the meaning of a photography. It isn't photography anymore, its digital designing.

However, some could still argue though, what if the photo is used for publishing? What if its just to do business instead for artistic or recreational purposes? After all, money makes the world go round and makes the most honest man stray from his principles. So what if you want to manipulate your photo in such a way that you're practically creating your own scene that never existed in the first place? As long as you manage to sell the picture isn't that all that matters? This is from a business point of view of course. Well, then I have to admit, by all means do do it if its going to make you rich, but do not call it photography, let alone a photograph. Because it has actually become a digitally designed picture, instead of a photograph captured by a camera alone. There should be a fine line between the two, and that line should never be blurred. One of the few who actually still sticks to uncropped images is National Geographic, believing in showing only what was there and the truth.(I crop my photos by the way) My point is that digital imaging should never be confused photography, and the fine line between the two should always be acknowledged so as not to distort what photography is in the first place, 'Photography is the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a radiation-sensitive medium, such as a photographic film, or an electronic sensor.'