Look, photographers aren't yelling about digital photos anymore. Why? Because digital photos are actually BETTER quality and no one can tell the difference. Dark rooms are cool--but mostly for nostalgia's sake.
This is great analogy, IMHO. But it works more toward one of the OP's points.
Firstly, some photographers will always lament the complete shift to digital. From the wedding photogs who used to make $80k/yr, but who are now selling insurance, to the newspaper photo staffer who isn't needed because any reporter can handle a point-and-shoot digital camera.
Look at a copy of a 1987 Wilmington News Journal, Hartford Courant, SJ Mercury News, or Boston Globe. Then compare the images to today's papers. There are still great photojournalists. But there are less because the training ground is narrowed. A 30k circ daily used to have a minimum staff of three photogs, with a couple freelancers and maybe an intern. I once worked at a 50k daily Gannett with SIX staffers, four freelancers, and an intern slot.
The slow, twenty year demise of newspapers has strangled great photojournalism just because there are fewer jobs. But digital photography has had a part, too.
At many Thompson "rags" of the past (they are a good example because they were the largest chain by number of papers), reporters were often sent out with point and shoots. The reporters hated it because they weren't photographers. The photographers hated it because they were stuck developing and printing half-ass snap shots. Reporters and photogs had a secret agreement to bitch to editors, trying to keep them from cutting photo budgets and to remove the photo burden from reporters.
Enter the digital era. Wedding guests and reports both became viable alternatives to "real" photographers. There are still some fantastic photojournalists, but if you don't have a minor league, your major league teams will suffer.
The quality of film v. digital in newspapers is an old argument. As old as "to Photoshop or not to Photoshop the Coke can out." There are less jobs and less training, so there are fewer great photojournalists. Acceptable photos are much easier, so the overall quality is probably better, mostly because you rarely see unfocused, bad exposures editors had been forced to use.
But the overwhelming number of photos you see in today's papers are shot around 40mm...greatness happens at 24mm, with some 180mm thrown in. Great photojournalism is getting close, yet having depth. Few reporters have the time or desire or skill to execute this with a camera. Declining ad revenue has been the killer. But digital photography took away jobs, too.
It is what it is. I'm not making any judgment regarding ebooks. I will always aspire to have a hardcover in my hand, or I won't be happy. But that's me, not you. Neither of us is wrong.
Just my 2 cents.
