I don't care either the picture was taken with film or digital camera. Also I dont have to know and I don't care about details how the picture was captured.
But I know that, taking a good photogrpah need lot of skill and talent, and I want to believe a photograph I take look on, was captured with skill and talent. So I care about if someone pretend to have all the skill, and talent, but actually just manipulated a picture in computer and have no photogrpahy skill.

So if an artist can't capture a good photograph because a lack of skill, but can create a great art from it using a computer, I don't care, just please don't call it anymore Photorap, because the end result was created by computer not by camera.

If an artist never had a brush in his/her hand, just printed pictures with a printer, why should we call him/her a painter? Just because the picture what he/she created looks like a painting? If it wasn't painted just printed, why we should call it painting? Just make the people believe the artist is so good with brush? (what is not true or in other words it is a lie) So a painting which wasn't really painted is fake, and if the people still believe it is a painting it is actualy a cheating. Because if we call the picture painting we expect that, it was created by hand, by brush.

I know and already I said, why digital artist want to keep call their work as photographs. Because as a digital artist they are still not enough or should to do much more, but as a photogrpaher they can beat real photographers even without as much photography skill, because the computer give them lot of advantige over photography, so they can compete unfearly which give them more chance to success.
Otherwise they are would accept the name like "digital artist". I can't see why this name is not good for them? Actually this name describe better what they are doing! Because the end result of their work is created in computer, not with camera.
Actually if we take a closer look on the digital art, we find out it is much closer to the painting than to the photography, just a picture is more photorealistic than a painting.
A painter can paint only what he/she want, or what is in his/her mind! Doesen't matter the real colors, or real subject, the painters don't have to paint all things what is front of him/her, and can add anything to the picture, which wasn't there.
Digital artist can do, and actually they are do a same thing! Photographer can capture what is front of the camera! We can't capture a picture with cahnge a color on a detail, or if we want to add something, that we have to ad for real, place it into the composition. So photography is more limited but this is the chalenge and this is why not easy. Digital artist like painters doesen't have this limitations. So digital art actualy closer to painting than to photography. Why you guys who do digital manipulations, don't call yorself painters?
The digital art is looks like a mixing of photography and painting.
Who don't have a talent and good hands to painting, can take a picture with camera so not need to worry about how to paint, but who don't have a talent to photographing either can use same tools and freedom as painters to manipulate the picture, with a help of the computer.
But this is not photography.
In a common knowledge the photography is hard. Almost everyone had some experience with it.
But because the computer was created to replace the human effort and skill, doing something with computer in a common knowledge is an easy thing.
So you can get bigger recognition and respect as a photographer than a digital artist. So I understand why the digital artist are insist on call them photographer. This is the way to achive a bigger success with the less effort.