He didn't say it was so defined.
Originally Posted by CGW
However, *I* often say it should be so defined. A lot of confusion might have been avoided if digital had continued to be called "imaging" or some similar term versus traditional "photography." That wouldn't invalidate the former, but it would help demarcate them a bit better. One art is distinguished from another by process, not artifact. Otherwise, "photo-realistic painting" would be the same art as photography, and it clearly isn't. For commercial work, it's the artifact, the finished product, that is defining. Are we talking about art or commercial photography? I include selling the ability to take snapshots of the vacation and kids to the general public as commercial in this case. It sure ain't art.
Even so - yes, and no. I'd probably buy a DSLR since digisnappers are still too limited for me, but I sure wouldn't invest a lot of time and effort into it as I do now. It'd be limited to what the general public mostly does with a camera - records of events and travels and people. I'd make little real effort to make prints to hang on the wall or the like.
I have other hobbies, and I'd spend more time and money on them. When it comes right down to it, it's the process I mostly enjoy.