> This may be simplistic but "photography" means "painting with light" > or something to that effect. Nowhere is the medium mentioned. Why > should digital photographers then not have the same status as those > who employ film and paper? I have to agree.. As much as i'm no fan of the wholesale adoption of digital, throwing the baby out with the bathwater and turning one's back on alternative formats, photography is many things to many people. we are all practitioners of various processes that fall under the broad banner of photography whether we be casual snappers, dedicated artists, hacks, skilled pros or mums and dads keen on preserving memories. NOT in this category are photographic paraphenalia collectors who shoot nought and simply delight in possessing trinkets and valuable assets! digital or film, light recorders are what we are. BTW, photographers were not looked down apon by artists at the dawn of photography, this came later after the mindset that developed when an unfortunate sequence of events led both the photographic aparatus AND the resulting images to be displayed in the same area as steam engines and farm implements during the first world trade fair in London that introduced photography to the world. Prior to this mistake photographers were seen as artists in the very truest sense .. turn back the clock and move those displays into the fine art area where they were *supposed* to be displayed and I suspect it would all have been very different. karl
