Digital photography is the art?

With digital (digital) as of today, art photography has been regarded as the art of taking pictures or just the art of tweaking the milk?
At first when taking pictures, I want to keep the original image, but the more days than I had to crop and resize adjust the milk adding some more parameters such as exposure, levels, color, etc.
I personally find that isn't true with the words "art photography".
In my eyes, the beautiful photos taken by me being so much on hardware (Canon, Nikon) Gong as software (PS, ACDSee), there are two things that the pictures I take are just mediocre picture.
I never leave my pictures taken as art at all. I just receive the facilities nuốn the beautiful pictures incredible for generally regarded. So the pictures I post up then just the pictures record a Professor worked on the nature "photo" rather than "artwork".

Today I suddenly find that "announcement templates" just "bad luck". Blessed with a wonderful, blessed with long barrel, blessed with the time and money to go shooting. And good luck with the bird put his face taken, good luck, sunshine. Good luck and know how to use PS, ACDSee, etc.

Don't know the photograph that is giving the original photo or just put up the edited sheet.
As the topic I would expect that there are people who lost their shooting and employing image their look with courage gave thought back of the plate and tied saying how from a reading of milk conforming to the other brothers to learn:

I think I fit the picture to reach the goal of photography. Not only is photography art photo editing, as well as art, and photo editing master, in my eyes is also an artist. So this problem depends on individual perception.

Hours talking about art, as I understand, as I think, when we depend on hardware and software is artwork in half?
Perhaps it is in the art content. Like 1 artist photos, artist rich, good color, good drawing paper, Sai, to 100 years not fade color. Poor artist, using makeshift materials, for several years already. Can not say 2 him, he knows the poor artists created works of art, and vice versa.

About digital image and photo film. I'm not qualified to comment in depth about the photo quality. But I saw the camera, affected by the environment (by air, or by the lens or sensor ...) makes the finished products tend to be opaque, coloured in. That is the typical example above.
Perhaps in a convenient wall-lip, 1 air and good lenses, the finished product will be nice. But in general we use the camera to edit little in terms of level, curve, contrast ... let the photo like that.
According to individual children then it is the advantages of digital technology brings.

Currently a film still, people like you can still use the film to compose. But in fact, most professional photographers or amateurs are like digital, because it has certain advantages.

ps: do you know a Free artist in the us, he kept the school photo, taken with the D300 with munual something forgotten. The general picture is beautiful, but its OK, accepted definition (in my eyes). He did not adjust both image crop. So much so that the Sai not signature, signature is used the information taken in the camera software.

In general each one felt, mainly themselves satisfied with the outcome of crabs. Should not be thought to be at least interfere with the picture, the new is art. Also various color phase is art. This is wrong.