This statement is simple absurdity. I can think of no way to justify it. If there is no difference, then why would digital imaging ever have been invented? By your statement, even inventing it would be impossible to do, because it's the same thing as chemical photography, so if it's "one and the same" then it can't justifiably even be said to have been invented or to exist.
More absurdity. You may want to do some basic reading on how digital imaging works. There is this new thing called a "pixel". It's pretty revolutionary from what I understand.
Giggle. That's a funny statement coming from someone who insists that photochemical photographs and semiconductor-based digital imaging are worthy of "no distinction".
I feel that "real photography" is a fitting description of photochemical photography because a real, physical photograph is generated. Digital imaging creates an image in the form of a matrix of numbers, which is its overwhelming strength and crowning achievement as a technology. You could say that digital imaging's greatest advancement is the ability to capture an image without having to actually generate a physical photograph. That is indeed why it has been adopted as the dominant imaging technology for most commercial purposes.
Thanks for stating my thoughts and saving me the time to respond to someone puking out the digital-is-the-same-as-analog houie!
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.