Without a doubt. It does however, have a different kind of impact on the viewer. When I first look at a photograph, I am more tempted to take it at face value- to see it's beauty (or whatever emotion it is trying to invoke) than to see it's deep meaning or what it could have meant to the artist. This feels a little more shallow whereas when I look at a painting I immediately try to locate the symbols and the meaning of the piece. I say this as somebody who is largely separated from photography, but I know a good photograph when I see it- it is easy to differentiate a photograph full of time and involvement from a photo that is part of a string of quick, thoughtless snapshots.
The problem here is there are far too many "artists" looking for an easy gig in photography who, in their ignorance produce the equivalent of a bad drawing because they are unwilling to put forward the effort that good photography really takes.
The young and naive art critics of the world see these bad images and are imprinted with a bad first impression. Over time, they will come to their senses and be able to comprehend the complexities of the art world.
I've been there.
Isn't a large fraction of art supposed to be about having an open mind? It's like a flowering bud- always opening up, and when it reaches it's limit, it produces fruit. All the while it is a thing of nature's perfection...and humor.

_{should a photographer be regarded similarly to a fine artist:
--
i appreciate the artist a lot more. it takes time to make a great photograph, but it takes so much more time to make a fine drawing. you can draw anything you can imagine, but you can't photograph anything you imagine. photography is limited even with editing tools. i do appreciate photography in a different way, but i am always amazed so much more by the traditional artist.}

--
_{wind up your consequence}

couldn't have said it better,

--
"It's a fool who plays it cool and makes his world that much colder" -paul mccartney