What is "photography"

I disagree.

Any form of AI generated images or parts of images is not photography. AI generates images or parts of images, not photographs or parts of photographs.

If AI generated images is photography then anyone or any thing combining and manipulating any of your or anyone else's images into an image would be creating a photograph. That’s ludicrous imo.

I see a photograph as being the image created from the captured light during a shutter actuation in a camera.

Photography is basically the making of a photograph as defined above.

Multiple photographs can then be combined and manipulated into a single image, not a photograph.

All photographs are images but not all images are photographs.

I hadn't looked at this thread until a moment ago.
Photographs don't require cameras. In Melbourne some years ago there was (eventually) agreement that a major competition won with images created when models lay on large sheets of photo paper, in the dark, and then an image was made by turning on light, were technically photographs, Similar conclusions were reached around the Man Ray period.
Images have been able to be made in darkened rooms using pinholes, for many hundreds of years. They are not considered to be "photos." Any attempt to define "photography" therefore has to include some reference to how the image was formed and to the "fixing" involved that stores the image. After that, good luck. The speed of change in the technologies available keeps shifting the ground. Apple has had a go at it and I think it is close. "Something that really, actually happened." We might have to add a bit such as "Where the event was recorded in an image formed by light and the image was then stored by a fixing technology."
After that we go down the slipperiest of never ending slides when we try to define at what point altering the stored image is no longer a photograph. I don't think this point will ever be defined beyond argument.
But I do think the resurgence in film cameras is very much a response to digital manipulation and now many people becoming more appreciative of traditional camera skills.

The definition of light used in physics is any from of electromagnetic radiation. Visible light is the small sliver that is detectable by humans. Images using UV, X-ray and even gamma rays are photographs. To see the paradox that arises of one only considers visible light consider IR telescopes like the James Webb or the IR portion of the Hubble. They are detecting IR radiation, which was a million or so years ago visible but whose detected wavelength has stretched as the universe accelerates causing a red shift. So limiting light to the visible spectrum only, then the Webb is taking images using light that was once light but ceased to be light but is still the same electromagnetic radiation originating from the same event.

I think the definition of photography has to include the term passive. That is the radiation detected is capturing preexisting radiation. That is in contrast to radar imagery where a scene in illuminated with radar and the reflections captured or MRI where a strong magnetic field captures the interactions in the resulting magnetic fields.

Interesting point. Certainly different to "if I cain't see it, it ain't light".

Not sure that is generally applicable - case in point: flash (and only flash) photography ...

I think we are making progress. Without daring to begin trying to provide precise and succinct final wording, I reckon our definition needs to cover (so far) three points.
An actual event
Image created by electro magnetic radiation
Fixing
Any agreement/disagreement on this? Anything else to add?
I can see a case for and against photograms by including reference to some form of lens (including pinhole of course) to focus the electromagnetic radiation.

So "created" implies the Greek "written with light" and could be said to exclude processing because that is covered by "Fixing". I would however exclude post-processing of any kind because at that point photography becomes imagery.

That pretty much sums up what I posted earlier -

A radar image requires flying an aircraft on a precision course or a satellite to illuminate the subject with a radar. An MRI requires applying a magnetic field strong enough that if the subject had a tattoo with iron based red inks they would fry his skin. That is active I think anyone would agree. On the other hand the use of flash or other visible light sources has been around for years. I don't consider flash active because it has been around since the 1800's with the use of "flash powder." High energy electron beams, high powered magnetic fields, radar, high energy gamma rays, etc., used to form an image - is clearly "active."

Interesting enough the reason a narrow sliver of the EM spectrum can be seen my man is the visible spectrum is the only portion of the spectrum that can interact with the sensors in the eyes. IR photons don't have sufficient energy. to stimulate the eye. Photons above the visible spectrum are not absorbed by the cornea so can't be detected. However, the good old diamond back rattlesnake ( or any other pit viper ) hunts based on detecting IR radiation emanated by its prey - a.k.a. heat.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

There have been some wonderful images produce by among others Minor White using IR film. So yes one of the great masters of photography used IR to produce photographs.

www.lifepixel.com/photo-tutorials/the-great-minor-white-and-infrared-photography

It is considerably different from what you said earlier. It is generally agreed that a camera is not required for a photograph and that photograms are photographs. Turning a light on and off is not the same as a shutter in a camera. You didn't mention fixing. Images can be formed in various ways but the image has to be fixed before you have made a photograph.

It is exactly what I said because I quoted my earlier post.

I see a photograph as being the image created from the captured light during a shutter actuation in a camera.

Whether you "fix", or whatever you want to call it, the data collected during a shutter actuation into an image in camera or manually in post is a personal choice.

Photography is basically the making of a photograph as defined above.

What data are you using to come to that opinion?

I see photograms as being an image and not a photograph.

All photographs are images but not all images are photographs.

To take it back to the OP's title, I think I can say that quibbling about the definition of the word photograph is NOT photography.

Of course it isn't but to define photography you need to include the definition of a photograph in order to decide whether it is part of photography or not.

I think the fisherman would have to say he'd throw that one back...