Gosh this has some meat to it Clive...

Art (whatever that is), I would prefer to see in person than say virtually. Value is so nebulous though of a term, think of Gursky's Rhine II, some give a lot of value (monetarily and as a piece of art) due to seeing it personally due to its presence (same might be said for Sherman's huge pieces) - but what is value anyway? Does a grandparent have tons of value seeing a ultrasound picture of their first grandchild as a print in hand vs say posted on FB?

Photojournalism, now it starts to break down (or maybe prove a point), when I saw in horror those poor souls killed in Tiananmen Square, what difference does it make if those horrible images are printed on 10x10' Cibachromes or as a bad grainy video still - the "value" is the same. Same could be said for The horrible images of Neda Agha-Soltan that went all through twitter and the net in a matter of hours after her being killed in Iran in 2009....how do you place a "value"?

Photography/art is hard to put in a pretty box....I ask you what is value? And if you answer that, who's to say anyone is right or wrong? It might be easy to say fine art prints are better in hand (hence value) which I agree with (just look at how bad my print scans look for proof, gosh my prints look nothing like the garbage in the Gallery), but it might be too limited to say "value" because it depends on the image, purpose and intention...