A few random comments, based on other comments above:
I didn't know that Mark had a PhD in physics, or that somebody else had one in chemistry, and there might have been a third one with a PhD in something else, but all of them are irrelevant. It's useful to remember that art has a content and a history that stretches back far further than the history of physics, and that there are people who've studied art as long as a PhD physicist has studied physics -- and if you really want some serious, in-depth thought about art, you might want to consult an artist, or even a PhD in philosophy who specialized in aesthetics. To say that a photographer has a PhD in physics is like saying a bicyclist has a PhD in geology. The appropriate response is, so what? That's not to say that a physicist couldn't be an artist, it's just that they are different things.
Please, nobody take this as an attack on anybody, but I have noticed, in lots of other cases, that people who have a deep involvement with the physical sciences, engineering and measurement tend to approach photography with those tools -- essentially, tools of measurement. My landscape is better than your landscape because my equipment is better and more precise, which would lead you to argue that Mark's photos are better than Van Gogh's landscapes because a camera is more precise than a brush. Well, no. In fact, equipment is almost, if not entirely, irrelevant to the aesthetics. It does perhaps become relevant is you're exploring hyper-reality, as Mark suggests. As for those people who object to the term "hyper-reality," I'd say we all know what he meant. If you don't like it, invent your own term. In any case, we wouldn't have Harold Edgerton's explorations if it weren't for equipment.
I wish Schewe would quit using "dooode" when he tries to put somebody down. He's an intelligent guy, who does good work, and it makes him sound like an arrogant *ssh*l*.
More people should pay attention to Eleanor Brown.