I will not comment on the more advanced or professional issues this article raises as their are others more qualified to do so. However I would like to say that to the novice hobby photographer digital is great and therefore ultimately advances the art of photography at all levels. I have an inexpensive camera (nikon2100, psp, and a standard pc.). I can experiment and shoot images without any regard for further costs. This as a tremendous aid to the learning process. I shoot far more images with my digital than I ever did with film in the camera. Many years ago when I was at college we only had the option of traditional film/processing. I have owned high spec. 35mm slr cameras. But as a hobby photographer, of limited means, the cost was always at the back of my mind putting a ceiling on creativity. I can still remember lecturers saying: "don't waste film". Of course I would love to own a high spec. digital camera or expensive scanner etc. I can see the difference in the quality of shots people can produce. Yet except for the genres where it is essential to have the higher spec. equipment, I can still vent my creativity and learn in the process. I believe inexpensive digital is good for creativity and learning and will advance the art of photography. It is an old quote "It is the person taking the photograph, not the camera, that counts". Thanks for posting the link MGD I think it is a very interesting topic of debate and will look forward to seing other opinions.

And every one said, 'If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve,---
To the hills of the Chankly Bore!'
Far and few, far and few, Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue, And they went to sea in a Sieve.

Edward Lear
http://www.nonsenselit.org/Lear/ns/jumblies.html