Tim Gray said:
I think it's only coincidental that the 'photographer' and 'publisher' are usually one and the same - but in some professional genres, that's not necessarily the case.
Actually in most cases of commercial photography photographer and publisher are definitely not the same:
- advertising (agencies have their graphical artists working on the photo)
- stock (although wanting clean, technically correct photos they urge you to not edit them)
- fashion/magazine (again it is the companies themselves working on the final image)
- news (they don't even care for the photographer's intention, cropping and editing to their fit)
Now, what has changed over the past 20 years is the amount of work companies outsource back to the photographers, who thnk it is a good idea to have as much control over the end product as possible. It's comparable to the shift from the corner shop to the supermarket - you have to invest in work to get a lower price*. With photography it is just turned around due to the companies being much more powerful than individual photographers.
There's several downsides to the new paradigm, firts and foremost we are attached to a computer much more than a camera. We are also much more responsible for the end result, at least we are held that. curiously enough our deadlines are much narrower - 'Hey, with digital cameras we can subtract any lab time!' - although we are asked to do more. And then there is the blurring of the line between producer and publisher [to borrow your terms and enhance them a bit].
'Photography' is a rather broad term, befitting a broad phenomenon. It reaches from collectors of gadgets through snapshooters to the fine arts with numerous professional branches scattered along the way. It does not matter if one has already done the jump from film to digital since the basic components for both are the same [digital allows only for easier manipulation, it does not offer any categorically different tampering]. There have always been those photographers making their images in camera, and those believing strongly in darkroom work, 'where the real image is created'.
A middle-ground did exist, too, studio photographers trying to get it all right with meticulous pre-shot work, and then enhancing their photos slightly in the darkroom. This middle-ground is what most of us are now in. We have the tools to easily manipulate photos to get the real image - and we do it, correcting digital shortcomings [there are less and less, many of the newer cameras offer superb in-camera algorithms], righting any mistakes like tilt or forgotten exposure correction still dialled in. Obviously we try to get the most out of the original photo to convey what we found fit to take a picture of in the first place.
In short: I don't see any reason to define exactly what 'photography' is, particularly not in any ethical terminology ['right' or 'wrong'; demarcation can also be ethical].
*Let's go into this a bit more for a better understanding: In the corner shop you get serviced, you are asked what you want, what you need, you get hints and tips about what would be a good choice, the shop assistant (actually the owner most of the time) will look for the best on stock. In the supermarket you have to do everything yourself; some even get rid of cashiers and let you check-out yourself.