So is drawing, lithography, etching, wood engraving, and painting. During the 18th & early 19th centuries a complete education included training in drawing in order to record observations. Photography eliminated this need but people still draw and pencils and pens are still available. Photography also replaced the commercial reproduction of illustrations using etching and lithography. For the most part digital capture has replaced commercial photography (think of all the do-dads sold by Leitz and Zeiss that can now be accomplished in a snap with a computer), but this does not mean that photography a creative artistic endeavor will disappear, as APUG attests.
no,
the difference is that when offset printing came on hard, photography became its illustrator,
and the whole field of consumer photography is from that path, not the path of using film and paper
and making photographs ...
there are 2 kind of photography
one that is fueled by the publishing industry ( chromogenic film was from that too )
and the one that isn't ...
compared to the consumer strain, the publication strain, the printed strain ( as in printed/electronic media )
film and paper photography is different and one could say dead ..
if painting and etching &c became a mechanical process that was the main way publications illustrated articles they might suffered the same fate.
photography's greatest thing ( multiplicity and democraticisation of the photographic image )
ended up being its biggest flaw ... ( as far as i am concerned )
walter benjamin was a smart guy
http://faculty.winthrop.edu/stockk/Contemporary Art/Benjamin mechanical reproduction.pdf