Hehe, sensitive topic indeed.

Although a lot of the hard parts of painting has been removed with digital imagering, the skill taken to make the digital images are based on the same picture making theories. Any similarities stop there though. It is a different medium and we have no proper word for the act of making it. Hence it became digital painting because "painting" it is the only way we can describe the act of neatly arranging colors to form a picture. The act of making a digital picture has little to do with painting in the literal sense, but picture making theory is the same in any medium.

The real issue at hand is if it can be called art. Since there is no original the piece in it self can never hold value, nothing but a copy can ever be hung on a wall. The only value a digital piece can have (in and by it self) is for commercial purposes. Its value is based on a copyright law. You can become rich as a digital artist, but not because you sell art.

You produce.

There is no denying the insane results that are achievable with digital mediums. The increase in quality comes down to the fact that one can zoom, cut, overlay and use layers. You can make details on things that would otherwise be impossible. Digital imagering is quick and effective. That is why it has become so popular in the production line where everything is about time vs cost.

I respect digital artists for their skill at making images that i spend a moment looking at or see at a passing glance in a movie or game.

I respect traditional artists for their skill at making pictures that i buy and hang on the wall.

Until another word is made up they have no real choice but to call it painting.

My take on it is that digital images are digital images, paintings are paintings, drawings are drawings and Bob's your uncle