Digital has changed photography, that is for sure; and in many ways for the better.
Forgetting the mechanisms of making a picture, for a moment, 'digital' has opened, or at least prised wide, two doors.
1/ Digital Delivery.
Before digital, photography made a physical artifiact. A picture. Usually a print, on a bit of paper. Those artificats were presented to the viewer, either in an envelope you got from the chemists, or in an album, or in a book or magazine. Occassionally, perhaps, some sad chap would torture his freinds and family, pulling out a projector & darkening the living room to give a slide show of thier holiday snaps.
But for the most part, photo's were rarely seen, hidden away in the projector caroucelles, tucked in the back of bottom drawers, or stuck in albums getting dusty on book-shelves.
Published photo's obviousely got more exposure, but even then. Most were published in news-papers with a shelf life of a weeek, or magazines that might be kept a month until the next eddition came out, and preserved only in stacks on toilet floors until a women got fed up with them, or in Dentists waiting rooms!
2/ Indexing and Archiving.
In days of yore; the image was all. What you cought on the negative was all you got. I have hundreds of negatives that have come to me from my Grand-Parents after they died. I Might be able to tell from the film edge whether its a Kodak or Fuji film, and I might be able to tell if its a 100ASA or 200ASA, but not on all. I have no idea what camera the film was exposed in, what lens was on it, or what the shutter speed and appature might have been. I dont know who took the photo; I dont know when they took the photo, or unless there is something identifiable in the image, where, or of who.
Meanwhile, they are physical artifacts, subject to mechanical damage in storage & handling, and believe me, many are damaged. some have got damp. Some have been chewed by rodents. Others taken from thier sleeved are scratched to bludgery. And mixed up, and in no order, I often cant tell what strip belongs to what 'set' or came from what film.
Digital has pried open these to areas of photography. As far as indexing and archiving are concerned; well, it was possible in the olden days to be very very diligent, and keep manual records of your photo's and to store them in order, neatly and tidily... just wasn't very easy, or convenient, hence very common. Digital, Data Embedding, though; cameras record basic situation information within the image data-file. The EXIF data. The Camera, shutter & apature; Date, & time; possibly the lens setting, if not the lens. And, much more easily, extra info may be automatically or manu8ally added to this, and stored with the actual image file; GPS Co-Ords, Photographer's name & contact details, a Photo title, photographers comments. All making it a lot easier and more convenient to keep track of photo's and give them extra relevence as to what they are, and what they are showing us. AND instant, and lossless reproduction. There's no one master negative. Copy the file from SD card to CD... you have two copies. Photo's can be preserved, with much less risk of degredation or distruction.
Then we have digital delivery. Instant, lossless, almost costless reproduction.
If I wanted to show photo's of my kids Chrsitening to my brothers.. I had to wait until they came round and crack out the family album. Or I had to go through the pictures, pick out the ones they might be interested in, get copies printed, pop them in an envelope and post them to them. Now? I stick it on Face-Book... and they, with a couple of clicks, see the lot, 17" wide on the screen on thier lap! Pictures of my Daughter's Birthday Party? Grandad can see them, day after, ten thousand miles away, on another continent on hios frigging mobile phone!
Digital delivery has pulled photo's out of the cupboards, off shelves and put them where people can, and want to look at them.
And it's self perpetuating; people looking at photo's makes people want to look at photo's, makes people go take more photo's for people to look at, and so on and so forth....
Yeah.... I think they should draw a line some-where... NO I really dont want to see a photo of your breakfast, or what your cat left in the kitchen, than-you very much.... but HEY! People got cameras in thier hands and are using them, and people are looking at the pictures they take.
And bottom line, that is what a picture is for, to be looked at!
All well and good taking pictures, but oif they get looked at once, then hidden in an album or box never to be seen again, no matter how much technical or artistic merit they may have.... they are some-what more pointless than the 'Look at My Lazy Dog' shot some-one has taken with thier camera-phone and put on Face-Book, that at least CAN be seen, even if no one really wants to!
OK, lets return to the original proposition then: I'm interested to know if others feel some of the craft of photography is being lost
Well, first off, a craft can only be lost if there are no practitioners; fact that digital has put cameras in so many folks hands AND got them using them, can only increase the number of practicioners, hence increase the odds that the 'craft' will flourish. Thats the first thing.
Think about it. Fifty years ago, not every household had a camera. If they did, it was 'Dads' camera, like as not, and just as likely, it would get loaded with a film, probably 24 exposures long; only half of which would be exposed, taking cheesy holiday snaps during the annual summer holiday, the rest possibly spent taking a few snaps on special occassions.
I just came accross, an old 220 cartridge film that found its way into my archive, I think from my Grandfathers stuff, that I scanned this week-end. First couple of frames showed what I think were some shots of Edinburgh, and a parade of kilted Soldiers with bag-pipes at the front of one of them, suggests it was at the Edinburg Tatoo. I'm guessing, but I seem to recall being told of a Family Holiday to Edinburgh when my Dad was 16... so dates the pictures possibly to 1966 or 1967. Next on the reel, are some wedding snaps. My Mother's wedding... easy to identify them, but dates those frames to 1970.. before the last few frames show some ornimental gardens, that could have been taken at any time, except one of them seems to commemorate the England Rugby team, with floweres planted to form the numerals 1972, clearly in shot. So... one film, pictures spanning half a decade!
And from a cartridge instamatic. The antique point and press. What 'Craft' was there to using such a camera?
Modern 'Consumer' cameras, whether last of the line 35mm film compacts with Program Meter Automatic Exposure, and Auto-Focus, or modern Digital Compacts, whether stand alone pocket cameras or even camera-phones are not a lot different; demanding little skill or knowledge to operate.
And every dog and his dixie has one! Geez! They are giving cameras to frighging CATS these days! I think this says as much as anything! Once upon a time pets were photographic subjects for indulgent owners. Now they are the frigging photographers with thier own bloomin Blog-spot and You-Tube Channel!
Sort of shows how far digital, making photography that much more accessible and digital delivery getting pictures out there to be seen has made SO many more photographers, so many more photo's and got people interested and looking at them!
This cannot be indicative of a dying craft! Surely!
OK.. so we dig into the detail; big difference between putting together an Ikea flat-pack wardrobe and crafting a Queen Ann Cabinet complete with vaneer marquetry.. both is making furnature, but skill demonstrated by either are at opposite ends of the 'craft'.
So.. what skill are we talking about?
Making Pictures. This is the bottom line. Lighting, composition, finding the interest, understanding the angles.... None of this has changed.
Might be looking at an LCD panel on a modern camera not a ground glass view-finder, but still the same skill. And this is STILL 90% or more of what makes the picture, what you look at and record.
Camera Control? Technical mastery of the machine. Hmmmm. Well, modern cameras might have fancy auto-focus and auto-metering and stuff. This is however not really the preserve of the Digital Camera. Through The lens metering has been around since when? 1960's? Meter-Linked Automatic Exposure? 1970's? Auto-Focus? 1980's? Those technologies, thouse 'easements' or 'conveniences' were around a long time, while the only capture medium was still film. And, I recall THEN people griping that they 'De-Skilled' the craft.
Digital has done no more than change the capture medium, and make it a heck of a lot cheaper and easier to make pictures.
I can still switch off the Auto-Focus on my Digital camera, I can still switch off the Automatic TTL Exposure controls, put it on 'Manual' and use the old Selenium Cell hand held meter. I just dont HAVE to.
And, with far more Digital SLR's out there, and in the hands of people more often using them, and taking more photo's with them; we see on here, more and more people asking HOW to use these manual controls and actually seeking these 'old' skills.
Doesn't really suggest that they are being 'lost', in fact suggests they are being encouraged.
Dark-Room, Post Processing? Another resounding Hmmmmmmm.
What skills were used in the dark room that dont ranslate to digital? Well, instantly the messy time consuming processes of mixing solutions springs to mind. Is that really 'photography'? Or merely applied chemistry. If you want to critasise Digital for 'killing' that skill, then by rights you ought to similarly critasise commercial celuloid film for 'killing' the skill of having to make your own glass plates, mixing your own emulsions!
So... printing. Dodging & Burning? Selecting paper grades? Air-Brushing? All the skills of making a print in an enlarger are still there.... just done in a different way. Yes, the dexterouse hands on skills of setting up the enlarger, making test strips etc are redundant; and the ease and oportunity to do incredibly complicated dark room processes are made an awful lot easier and faster in the Digital Post-Process package.
But Bottom line... its still making a picture.
Reliance on Post-Processing? This is another matter, and getting I think to the nub of your gripe. you had to get it right in the camera
Not REALLY. Remember, its about making a picture. The Grand Masters did that with photographic accuracy with a paint-brush and oils! Photography just made it a lot easier.
Photo-Realism? Well, the only 'True' image is the one we see with the naked eye. Using a camera we are only ever capturing an interpretation of that scene; and 'in camera'... we are not getting photo-realism when we use a tele-photo lens to get us closer to the subject. And 'in camera' we are deliberately exploiting photgraphic distortions whenever we utilise larger aparture selective focus to detatch and emphasise the subject against the back-ground, or a fast shutter speed to freeze motion that's faster than they eye can see, or deliberately use slow shutter speeds to make 'blur' to emphasise motion in the scene.
Its never 'Real', and doing it all 'in camera', is to limit yourself to a few tricks and techniques of the trade.
Process is MAKING a PICTURE. And camera is only the front end tool of the process, and one area where you can effect influence. Why restrict yourself or deny the merit in doing it elsewhere?
Back to skills of old; and modern HDR manipulations; modern re-invention of over-printing. Remember, before commercial celuloid film 'killed' the photographer's skill of making and preparing thier own glass plates, home-made emulsions were often very slow, and had very little exposure lattitude. Te MAKE a PICTURE, photographer HAD to use an extended skill-set, and make perhaps three exposures, one for high-lights, one for mid-tones and one for shaddows, to over-print on a single piece of paper, in order to get a full tonal range in the finished picture.
In THAT instance, whether modern use of HDR Post-Processing narks you, and so many examples of it de me.... doesn't really matter, it remains an example of where actually contrary to your argument, modern Digital techniques, and specifically Post-Processing techniques are actually rejuvinating skills even OLDER then those commonly practiced in the era of the manual film camer you are mourning.
Few probably understand, let alone apreciate that's what they are doing when they make an HDR merge, and they are probably not using the technique as of old or for the same reasons, or with the same discipline or dexterity.... BUT, they are applying the technique, and perpetuating the craft in doing so.
Which brings me around to suggest, in answer to original hypothesis, No, the 'craft' isn't being killed by digital, its being nurtrured and promoted, I think, very well.
As far as photographers attitudes and emphasis; and the suggestion that so much attension is paid to correcting problems in Post-Process, rather than avoiding them in camera, it is a tangential debate.
As a society we are now a lot more technology dependent. It's not just cameras. Want some fun? Take the fuse out of the kettle and see how many people, when you ask them to make a cuppa will think of boiling water in a pan on the hob! "Cant! Kettle wont work!" It's something endemic to modern thinking. So accustomed to pre-packeged solutions, our problem solving skills, or even basic common sense is seriousely eroded, and tangential elemental, 'back to basics' thinking just doesn't happen.
BUT, again, I dont think that digital is necesserily to blame here. Auto-Exposure, auto-focus were all around before digital. Digital is only a change in the capture mechanism. And even in the days of film, people would look at thier pictures and ask if it was thier film, or a problem with thier camera or if Boots were to blame, when they had flare in the picture because they had pointed the camera into the sun and not shaded the lens.
Models would expect acne to be air-brushed out in reproduction; printers were asked to correct converging verticals where a tilt lens hadn't been used, etc etc etc... it was all still possible; people still looked to the technology to correct stuff, it was just harder to do and less common, and people were less inclined to look to such solutions as first course.
But throughout; emphasis and attension has significantly always been on the camera; the primary capture device, and its been endowed with far more ability and responsibility to influence the making of a good picture than it ever really deserves, because it is the icon of the photographer, that is most obviouse... rather than thier eye.
If anything has been 'lost', and I suspect it probably has, then it is 'Discipline'. But that is again, endemic to modern society.... just ask a school teacher!
Imagination, I think is probably not as lacking as we'd presume; we just see a lot more photo's and a lot more emulation of styles, and with more and more easily obtainable creative tools at our disposal, a lot more experimentaion, and by extension, a lot more poor or failed results in consequence.
But bottom line.... its all about making a picture.
Whether as an artist, using brushes and paints, or a photographer, using lenses and chemicals, or lenses and electronics... its tools and techniques to the same end, all as valid as each other, but some-one ultimately has to know how to use them, and handle them, and where and when and how to use them to best effect.
good pictures are made, not taken.
Rest is just getting the best from your tools.
I see this year in, year out. 
)
