Photography and art, Digital trickery?

I have had more than a few photographers approach the gallery in the past week and have recently taken on another 2. For some reason there has been a big influx from people who are all keen to show off/sell their images. I have to be the bad guy and tell them that their work is tough to sell and isn't valued much by the people that come into the gallery.
It begs the question why we don't appreciate photography the way we did even 5 years ago. Have we seen too many mind blowing images that have desensitised our appreciation. I love photography, take photos myself and really rate the good stuff as art in its own right.
Digital cameras have opened up the medium to anyone and everyone. It has lowered the barriers and everyone is a photographer who can instantly show the world their work. There are billions of images out there and online imaging websites like FLICKR show that the standard is high. Worse for photographers is that if they do have a unique style, it is relatively easy to copy. By contrast the painter takes years to hone their skill with a paintbrush, the strokes akin to your own handwriting that are extremely difficult to reproduce.
Cameras with incredible spec are cheaper than they have ever been. There has never been such a level playing field in the world of photography. In many ways photography is going the way of the music industry where there is a proliferation of images that devalues each and every photo.
There is also the question of image manipulation. How much is too much? Where should we draw the line between photography and digital art? Magazines are being questioned for thinning and airbrushing their models but it is also prevalent in landscapes. The pristine white sand and perfect blue sky in "Wanderlust" is unlikely to be straight out of the camera. Colour will be boosted, distractions eliminated and you have to question how real the images you are seeing are.
The truth is that photographers have always used artistic license in their work. Before photoshop they would use different shutter speed, aperture, coloured filters or lighting. Post capture they would use different methods of developing the film and for example use silver selenide to give it sepia toning. I have to hold myself in check before I bore people too much about this stuff.
The fact that this manipulation has been taken to a new level doesn't make the images less worthy. I think its a great liberation where you can have anything you want. It also opens up the possibilities that have previously only been open to artists of the painterly kind. Work with photoshop gives that point of difference, that advantage over other photographers that may be thinking they can copy the style.
And this brings me to the photographers that are represented by Mooch art. We only show artwork that hopefully people recognise are by exceptionally talent people. This usually involves digital work that gives them the edge. If you want documentary images then watch the news. If you want outstanding art, come to mooch.