Artwork is as much about the process as the finished work itself. Let's say we both create a picture of a tree - same tree, same composition, same lighting, sa

Artwork is as much about the process as the finished work itself. Let's say we both create a picture of a tree - same tree, same composition, same lighting, same everything - only I snap a picture using my phone's 15-MP camera and you create a realistic watercolor (a la Eric Christensen). It's pretty fair to say that your watercolor would be way more awesome a piece of artwork, and way more deserving of recognition, than my digital picture. That said, like anything digital photography can involve a _lot_ of hard, creative labor resulting in spectacular pieces of art. I have no qualms with artists and critics falling in love with a particular medium. I really loved the story behind the Brownie! Think of all the history and art and humanity and emotion those cameras have captured over the last one hundred-plus years! But the story's author looking down on digital because it's digital and thus "cold" or "unfeeling" or "mechanistic" or whatever is just snobbery at best (or worse, Monster Cables-level crackpottery). Both film and digital can be great, both can be loved, both can host great artworks without either taking anything away from the other.