"I've stated before in the future I believe the only people that will be recognised as photographers will be ones shooting a wet process. "
This is a minority opinion, and to my mind a rather foolish one. Photography is photography, and the tools and processes used to create an image are a matter of time, place and technology.
Sounds like sour grapes to me.
I believe the term photographer will change it's meaning. The job of "Photographer" will no longer exist, there will be no market for someone that only takes 2d still images. The lines will become blurred between, still 2d, moving, 3D, hologram and whatever else the future holds. The term Photographer will be describing something more niche, like the job of a cobbler or candlestick maker, once common and considered necessary . The modern view will be more like "digital artist", 2d static images will not be enough. 4k camera phones, tablets and software will move the masses away from the photograph as we know it. And it will all be achievable at the click of a button or selection of a menu, no thought needed.
What we have right now is quantity cheaply and so less value. Getty and Facebook prove that, Getty will be consuming the Lions share of advertising revenue and throwing crumbs to the image makers.
The only way not to get ripped off is to have a product that can not be duplicated 10 or 1000,000 times at the click of a mouse, that's why I say in the future the only ones left called a photographer will be the ones hand crafting their still image. The more digital moves on, the bigger difference there will be in look between handcrafted and computer mass produced.
A digital camera that only does flat still images will be like owning an 8 track car hi-fi, the masses will move on, mainly because they are told they should. "Photographer" will be mentioned like Fletcher, Cooper or Lace maker, only a dedicated few left practicing the craft. We are not at the pinnacle of photography just because there are more cameras around that work easier than they did 40 years ago.
The equipment is not a measure of the state of photography, it's standing amongst the public is a better barometer.
I bet in the 60's the average person could probably name two or three well known photographers. I doubt most now could name one photographer, if they did it would probably be Annie or Bailey, no one contemporary. The golden age has gone, the respect has gone a digital photograph can be had for less than the price of the plastic bag you carry your shopping home from the super market in. That's how it's valued today, not because you can fit a camera in a shirt pocket that shoots 20fps in the dark.