There are striking differences between a capture, an image and a photograph, in my opinion.
A capture is what is initially taken with the camera, a frozen moment in time. At that moment what you have is a potential for something. A planned capture is an intermediate step of a long work-flow. A snap-shot or a 'candid' are what I call a capture. They have very little value as far as photography goes. Now if you consider the content these can be more valuable than anything.
An image is a decent capture with minimal post processing. Leica (the black dog) is an image, not a photograph.
A photograph is a planned, deliberate work pulled from a carefully post processed image. It becomes something more than an image. It is post processed to pull out every detail needed in order to bring out a photographer's vision and talent. A photograph cannot not tell a story by itself* but it must create a reaction from a simple question to repulsion. It is not 'just is'.
I am well aware that my definitions are limited and are points of view, yet I stand by them.
-----
* While few will agree with me, a photograph is part of a story, an illustration to a story, not a story by itself. Basically unless the photographer gives a context there is no story especially as time passes.