Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
Well that's your definition and sure, there are a lot of people who think that way, but it's not seafoto's definition and it's okay to have different definitions.
It is demeaning to photography.

Photography is photography. It is identical, the function is the same, there is no segregation of 'analogue photography' and 'digital photography' they are one and the same. 'Digital photography' is also analogue, the photography part of a digital camera, is in fact analogue, pure and simply. The latent image is reproduced in digital form post-exposure. The photofinishing stage is what is digital.

For all the minor differences, there are more major similarities and identical things.

Physics is physics, and making technical choices with a creative motivation is well, making technical choices with a creative motivation. (Composition, exposure, depth of field, filters, etc).

Your tool differs the most when it comes to finishing the image.

Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
Analogy fail. Watercolors, acrylics, and oils are comparible to B&W, color negative, color slide, or perhaps 35mm, medium format, and large format.

The real analogy would be arguing which is better, painting or photography. Or indeed, painting and digital imaging. There was a time when painting vs. photography was a real debate; thankfully everyone has gotten over it and now nobody asks painters why they just don't take a picture. Eventually, the same will happen with real photography and digital photography, and everyone will be better off.
Your 'analogy fail' is far greater, and less relevant. See above.

Photography is photography is photography is photography.