@uhoh Technically that's a reflection of Armstrong in the well-known photo of Buzz Aldrin. The photo being auctioned by Christies is the only full body photo of Armstrong on the lunar surface. There are also several of him inside the LM while it was parked on the lunar surface.

There are also frame grabs from the B&W TV camera that showed Armstrong descending the LM ladder at the beginning of his famous moonwalk. A 16mm movie shot taken through the window of the LM by Aldrin before he began his own EVA shows Armstrong walking on the Moon's surface. Here's a single frame extracted from it.

@MichaelC Can we agree it's a photograph on the Moon, that the figure in the center of the image is Armstrong inside a space suit, and the suit is shown from boots to helmet (as close as one can get to "full body" while inside a space suit)

@uhoh It's still a photo of a reflection of Armstrong.

Can we also agree that photographs of objects where the light path includes a mirror does not cease to be a photograph nor the object ceases to be the object?

some mirrors are even inside the lens itself

Are photos taken of objects using camera optics that include mirrors no longer photos of those objects, but only photos of reflections of those objects?

In both cases the optical path from object to focal plane includes reflections from curved mirror-like surfaces. I don't see the distinction, beyond an adherence to a particular set of semantics.

If I use a normal lens, must I say that I have "a photo of a refraction of an object"?

As long as we have a faithful point-to-point mapping from object plane to image plane and the image plane is recorded in photographic emulsion, that's a photograph of the object.

Photography often introduces distortions of various types, but that doesn't mean they cease to be photographs.

@uhoh There's a HUGE difference between using reflective elements inside a lens and a reflection of a secondary object from another object in the composition of a scene. Particularly when the subject (Aldrin) is at least 100X larger in terms of area than the tiny reflection of Armstrong on his visor. The image is an image of Aldrin that includes a very small reflection of Armstrong in his visor.

No sane person would consider this a photo of Armstrong as the primary subject (unless they mistakenly thought Aldrin was Armstrong).

If a person were standing next to Armstrong and looking at the same view the photo depicts, they would not be looking at Armstrong, they would be looking at Aldrin. If they used a pair of binoculars, they might be able to see Armstrong's reflection in Aldrin's visor, because they were looking at Aldrin's visor.

@MichaelC Well I certainly make no claims to sanity, nor is sanity a prerequisite for participation in Stack Exchange! But there's no rule that a photograph can't be "of" something if it was not the intended subject.

For example, if someone photographs the milky way and a meteor unexpectedly passes through and is captured, we don't say "Nope! That's absolutely not a photograph of a meteor because I wasn't trying to photograph a meteor."

I'm pretty sure photographers are sometimes pleasantly surprised by things they see later in their photographs that they didn't plan. Maybe they don't admit this happens, but it certainly happens.