Is there really such a thing as straight photography?

It certainly seems there is. Ever since the advent of photography there has been a rift amongst practioners of so called pure photography vs. the so called practioners of soft focus/manipulated photography. On one side of the fence resides your Ansel Adams types, and on the other side Jerry Uelsman types. Although one would ume that the manipulator would spend more time in the darkroom(or behind the computer) you will find that zone system photographers or self described straight photographers spend equal if not more time in the darkroom. The question I am trying to get at is that isnt all photography a manipulation of reality in that the human eye and the camera are not a 1:1 basis and that straight should not equate or be umed as reality. One only needs to look at the original negatives of moonrise over hernandez and the various printed renditions of the aforementioned negative to see that there is a disparity between reality, camera reality and human imagination.