Tech-nizzle on the Pho-drizzle

Lunenfeld brings up the argument that digital photography is not something that is viewed as a real photography, since a computer has developed the image and how the picture looks through contemporary technology. He states that, "When all images are created or modified by the computer, the photographic is no longer a privileged realm of visual communication, segregated by its mechanical qualities (60)." So because this new form of photography that humans have invented is used by a computer camera, it isn't viewed as real. One could argue the same thing about film photography, since it's captured through a lense and printed on to film through light it isn't a real photograph since something is creating the image. So by what definition is real photography according to Lunenfield if he's bringing up such a deep, and obtuse topic? If someone were to hold a 35mm picture and a digital CLR camera picture I'm sure that someone who doesn't know film would know the difference. If film is in a person's hand and completes the same objective, in retrospective views and realistic views that form of phography is real no matter how it's created. All forms of photography are switching from the 35mm film to digital since it's easier to doctor and put into literature these days. Lunenfield seems to be delving into a realm that he believes is important and should not change, but it seems that he forgets that the film cameras replaced painting art when they first came out. That's the argument that should be looked back upon before arguing how "things should be" instead of "how things are and were". If looked back upon, 35mm photos were doctored before in many instances which proved that photos could be tampered with and considered false "realms of visual communication". Paintings of the past were mimmiced by other painters also which proved that something as rare as a masterpiece could be re-done in almost the same exact style and format. Take the fake Mona Lisa's for example, there are posters and framed paintings sold in all parts of the world. With the right skill and knowhow of the chemical process used in creating 35mm photos, that could be tampered with as well disproving Lunenfield's arguments about the reality that photography has behind it. Large news corporations depend on their magazines to be completed promptly and professionally, using the old styles of photography became too costly. This new age digital photography is more expensive upfront but cheaper in the end since it's a one time fee start up cost; no film, no chemicals, all that is needed is a printer capable of photo printing.