This is something I have considered for a long time, and I have sat on both sides of the fence "opinion-wise".
So in light personal experience in art and photography, and being an appreciator of both for sometime, I offer the following...;
If someone sets up a trampoline, bounces and flips around with a paintbrush full of a variety of colors, and the medium the paint happens to express itself on is canvas, then that person is considered an "artist"
If the medium the paint happens to express itself on is a bunch of nude women, this too would be considered "art"
If the medium the paint happens to express itself on is the artist themselves, then again, this is "art"
But...if the medium the paint happens to express itself on is film or a digital sensor, then it is not art, it is photography...

....this is like saying:
"No sir, your reproduction of that woman is not art, its a painting"
Though I would agree that photography is a documentary tool(as is a pencil, or paint)
It can also be used to create art....
Its all how you use it...and your intention!

Im not talkin photoshop here(thats art too but in a different category)
And I know many would say that its too easy to be considered an art form, well then, go get an all manual film camera, and we will see if you can even get the exposure you want, let alone anything with meaning.
And tell that too a Sumi-e painter and you might instantly be transformed into art by their quick brush strokes

Get over it people, its art as well as documentative.
