I believe digital images to be equal to and as valid as those made on film (or slides). I don't think it matters what gear was used or how 'great' the photographer is propertied to be. The image should stand and speak for itself.
It's not helped I suspect by the fact that almost all images are now viewed on a monitor/screen and from 18" to 24". Why oh why pixel-peep at 100% and more when (as an example) the final output should be viewed as a 3 foot wide print and from 6 feet away.
I've been a photographer for over 40 years and as a teenager developed my own mono images in the family bathroom. These days like most people I rarely if ever use film though I still own a 1932 Leica II D and a plethora of Olympus OMs including perhaps my most favourite camera of all time, the Olympus OM3 which is I might add is in mint condition. Over the years I've shot everything from 35mm, sir, rangefinder, tlr, MF, LF studio cameras and of course now dslr, digital rangefinder and iPhone. Am I less a photographer now than I was then?
When I became a photographer, most things were tricky. The gear, especially SLR or rangefinder equipment necessitated a degree of competence and understanding to use it effectively. You needed to know your gear well and understand exposure as well as tricks of the trade from composition to panning techniques and beyond. Then of course was the film; which to use and in what circumstances. And if you did your own developing and printing, push and pull, Ilford vs Kodak etc, film vs slide, fuji velvia, kodachrome 64 etc etc. Oh and not to mention my favourite of all agfa scala 200!
I could go on! Cameras went on for years and years. My OM3 first introduced in 1983 is still as good as ever. I remember shooting a Zenit E with a 400mm lens attached having to prefocus to obtain shots of fast moving, often high flying motocross bikes. You needed to build and develop your skills well to get any decent images. Is my work less valued (if at all!) than it was in days of yore? Of course I am not suggesting that one doesn't need much of this knowledge and many of these skills today.
For me photography has always been an art form, something to be cherished and to be executed technically well combined with all the other elements to make great images (hopefully) more often than not. Less was always more. These days of course everyone's a photographer what with smart phones/camera phones and point and shoot 'mode' cameras. There's no doubt that for many, these new cameras take away much of the guess-work and the necessity for many of the 'gear' skills once needed. I recall watching a short video of a sports photographer shoot a 'dance' gymnast performing with a ribbon. Shooting at 10 FPS with a long 400mm lens and VR he managed to capture the perfectly timed image. Nothing wrong with that, I'd have missed it for sure in the olden days.
Perhaps familiarity breeds contempt? Perhaps less perceived (or actual) effort in the making results in a lowering of the worth of our output? Images surround us now, more than they ever have but is that at a cost? I believe so. Whilst it is great that photography is therefore available to everyone often at least cost and with greater ease there is for me personally a massive downside.
Mediocrity.
The great shame despite all these 'improvements' is that rather than use the high ISO capabilities, faster shutter speeds, amazing AF systems, truly marvellous dynamic ranges et al to create better and more exciting images, many just use them to shoot poor images that get added to the plethora of mediocrity that abounds throughout the internet. Many of today's so-called photographers shoot hundreds if not thousands of images in the hope that just a few will be worthy. Many don't understand exposure, don't get composition, can't manage to focus on the right point, do not understand depth of field, depth of focus, when to use which focal length and how to use subject to lens distance for effect.
Of course, lets not forget pixel peepers; where would we be without 100% and 200% view? And then there's the forums. Self proclaimed experts who argue from I'll-informed positions spouting option as fact. Where will it all end! Don't get me started on Ken Rockwell either!