Is Photography Over?

The question of whether or not photography is over has worn out its welcome so to speak.  I never really had any interest in this question as it seems obvious to me that photography is changing, but is not over.  In fact, I'm not sure that, to date, any medium ever has just completely died off.  And surely all mediums have evolved, finding new arenas to enter and flesh out, moving through the new questions raised by these movements, but to be completely over?  Surely not.

Perhaps this is not the exact question that was being asked, but rather the more pertinent question of is photography as we know it now over?  To that I would answer, yes.  There is a transitional stage that is occurring, and has been occurring, for quite some time, maybe even beginning with the development of the first personal hand held cameras, which changed the course for photography before the digital.  I feel as though the personal camera is now, through digital, exploring its final course in development as the imagery that has been coalescing over the years into a mountain of photographs, explodes.  This explosion is what we are now living in and out through the developments of social media, and it is this explosion that has caused much anxiety for photography as pieces of it continue to be blown out further and further from the medium-specificy that once haunted the photograph.
Much like Jennifer Blessing and Philip-Lorca diCorcia, I can see how photography as we know it is nearly over, but also like them, I do not see a need to panic.  For instance, Jennifer Blessing states "...there is still something that is "photography," there is still something inherent to the medium."  While, Philip-Lorca diCorcia states "The delivery system is rapidly shifting but the content is the same."  Both statements ring true to me in the sense that although the ways in which photographs are created are different, they are still being created, even though there are a good number of artists who use photography out of its original parameters (history, definition, meaning, associations, etc.), they do so with the weight of those parameters, whether they like them or not.  This is where the distinct mark of "photography" that Blessing discussed occurs, and again this rings true for any medium.  
For me, this is where George Baker's Photography's Expanded Field feels apropos.  Baker, who is interested in photographic forms that signal the end of the medium, has discovered that photography has both dispersed and returned to and from the potentials of photography in ways that almost leave behind the original medium-specific notion of the photograph.  It is this "expanded field" that Baker attempts to map out with little success, as the medium's moves are so multitudinous and quick.  
To pretend that these changes are not important or that they are the end all be all, would be a vast oversight of all of the evidence.  Even Joel Snyder, who believes that it is the end of photography recognizes that this does not change the machine of photography- the buying, selling, collecting, organizing and teaching of photography by its institutions.  With this argument I do not understand how photography is over because clearly it is being kept alive, even if it is at the cost of something else, it is still here, if not just in an expanded form, that may be far from the original but cannot hide its own photographic beginnings.