If it uses film it is called "photography." If it's digital it is called, "crap."
It's much easier to keep things straight that way.
I find that most people with digicams who fancy themselves as photographers will say things like, "Oh, I took one course on photography in college...," then they'll look at you like a Neanderthal when they see your Rolleiflex. Then, when you point out the red and green fringes around objects in digital pictures and explain how that is caused by the Bayer filter over the CCD chip and that there is no way to prevent that unless one buys a very expensive (multiple thousands of dollars) camera or unless the photographer knows how to use Photoshop which costs several hundred dollars to buy. At my last recollection, I don't believe Photoshop Elements, which many digital "photographers" buy, has the capability to remove that color fringing, at least not without some serious mucking around.
You can sit down with a person and show them their own pictures (or better still, your pictures) how lens aberration and Bayer fringing affect a picture but they are either blind to it, they don't care or they are lying to protect their own feelings.
Okay, the "digital = crap" thing I started off with was a joke... and I hope most of you figured that out.
However, my illustration, here, is meant to show that, unless you are a traditionally trained photographer or unless you have had instruction by a traditionally trained teacher, it is likely that you have not learned to be critical of your own work in order to notice things like aberration or macroblocking and you probably have no idea what dynamic range means to a photograph.
I know a few pro photographers who shoot digital 100% of the time, now, and they are really good artists and masters of their craft. However, they are all very critical of their work (and to a lesser degree, the work of others) and they all learned this by shooting photos with film.
I believe it is difficult or even impossible to learn how to be a good photographer unless you have had at least a little experience shooting film. That's why I recommend to everybody who wants to learn photography... even people who think they want to shoot only digital... that they should spend at least one summer shooting with film. In almost every case, where a person has taken that advice, I have seen his or her photography skills increase exponentially. Maybe that person had the skill and inclination to become a good photographer regardless. Or, maybe, pushing people into traditional photography as a "primer" separates the men from the boys, so to speak but, in more than 90% of the cases where I know a person has learned at least some traditional photography, they have improved. (One of those people was my 12 year old nephew.)
Most people who just want to snap pictures with a camera phone or a pocket digicam only want to view JPEGs on their computer screen. Those are the people who are the most troublesome. People who have taken the time and spent the money to buy a nice digicam are often more willing to listen for a short time.
In any case, my standard response to anybody who tries to chide me about shooting photos with film is: "I bet I can take better pictures with an empty beer can and a roll of duct tape than you can with your $2,000 digicam."
Haven't had anybody take me up on that bet to date but I think I still want to make a pinhole camera out of an empty beer can just for sh*ts and giggles, anyway.