Not sure if this a philosophical question or not. Does the 'sense' of place, person or object in an image that is produced by some photographic means make it a photograph? A current short discussion on the 'street and documentary' forum is discussing whether street photography requires a street or at least an urban environment. In one of the responses the concept of 'sensibility' has been raised: 'street photography is not limited by location. It is more a sensibility than a geographical cage (Fred G). This, combined with the announcement of the winner of the $20,000 2017 Olive Cotton Prize for Portraiture (Olive Cotton Award for photographic portraiture) has raised some questions in my mind. Firstly whether there is any usefulness or validity at all in any applying labels to images (or forums/genres) such as street, portraiture, landscape, abstract etc. Are we in an era where the boundaries between genres are so fluid that categorising doesn't make sense any longer? Secondly does the use of a photographic process and/or material make an image a photograph? In the case of the portrait prize winner many are questioning whether it is a portrait or indeed a photograph. The image certainly has a 'sense' of the subject - is this enough? Does this make it a portrait? Photographic materials have been used. Does this make it a photograph?