I always thought both traditional and digital would have been better served if the word "photography" was reserved for film and something else, like the original "imaging" was used for digital. That's not saying one or the other is better, but it is to acknowledge that they are inherently different art forms. They are alike in that an image is formed by a lens on a surface, but from the type of surface on to how the image is viewed or printed if it's printed, they differ. Sure, they can be combined, like enlarged digital negatives (made from analog or digital originals) for traditional contact speed printing processes, or scanning of film for inkjet output or monitor viewing. But the fact that two different things can be combined does not change the fact that they are different.