If I can stop laughing long enough, this can be easily cleared up. Let's start with the dictionary which defines revolution as "A drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving." Let see, we have basically replaced a silver light sensor with a silicon light sensor. Otherwise the camera remains as designed around four hundred years ago---a light tight box with an aperture in the front to control the light coming in and a light sensitive material at the back of the camera. So you are trying to tell me that changing the last few letters of light sensitive material is a far-reaching change? Come on now, get real. That barely qualifies as evolutionary.

Of course many will argue that the use of the computer instead of a photographic lab is the revolution. Here comes the true point of contention.

• First of all this technology is not new. The graphic arts industry (you know; magazine, newspaper, and book publishing) has been using computer technology since at least the 1980's to print pictures on paper. Which brings us to the main point---digital printing is a graphics arts process not photographic.
• Yes, I know, I know...the brows are furrowing out there but bear with me for a moment. Photography has always been defined as producing images by the action of light on a light sensitive surface. Check your favorite dictionary and you will find something along those lines. So far, so good---right? Now we get to the print making aspect. No light is being used to create a print from a computer ink based printer.
• People calling themselves artists in the photographic medium are using inkjet computer printers to make a print. That is, a machine that spits little tiny droplets of ink on the surface of a piece of paper. Those were called posters---no wait, they still are called posters! The publisher of Ansel Adams posters uses a machine that spreads little tiny droplets of ink on a piece of paper. (Also known as the graphics arts industry.)
• This does not diminish the work these artists produce, it simply is intended to clarify that the result is not a photograph. So those truly passionate about their work need to look for a new way to describe their work. Some taking a lead in this area refer to themselves as photo illustrators.

So there is no revolution here but simply a change in process for some.

Not only is digital not a revolution in photography, it may in fact represent the turning point in the history of photography that moves it fully from art to craft. Some experts have argued for some time that photography was not art and now they now have some serious justification for that argument. Digitally produced pictures are no different than any other machine based publishing process. Which is why I price my digital prints at about the same as fine-art posters.