But see, I am gonna risk the wrath of the Mods on this one, but we all scorn digital photography as not being true photography. Just as photography could not be an art to be compared with painting when it was new in the 19th century. The opinions of people change with time. I WILL ALWAYS PREFER FILM PHOTOGRAPHY. Digital photography doesn't take cool stuff like acid to coax a latent image into being, however to those that dedicate as much of themselves as did the film-using greats, they are true photographers in their own right. They use their own medium, their own canvas, their own method of capture. They use silicon instead of silver. Their process is electronic instead of chemical. It is true that digital photography can be made to be all about instant gratification and putting a quicky camera into every hand in the world, it has been taken to the masses, a perversion of the hallowed realms of film photography. But, after all, isn't that what was said about 35mm when the first Zeiss's and Kodaks and Leicas started popping up on the scene? The large format 'purists' howled then and the ringing continues even today. It is merely aimed in a somewhat different direction.
It is the creative eye behind the viewfinder/groundglass that makes photography an art and a craft, regardless of the mode applied. All an artist can do is to be true to his or her own vision and let history decide if the body of work is important or otherwise.
Just thoughts. Thank you for the kind words and the reads, folks. I truly appreciate it.