I would guess that the answer to the question in the title of this post would be overwhelmingly answered in the affirmative by most genealogists who are online reading this blog post. But the real question lies in the ongoing dichotomy concerning the part "history" and "sources" play in the world of genealogy. I have seen several graphic representations of the genealogical community based on general interest and I thought I would use the attitude towards history and sources as a criteria for being classified into one group or another. Here is the diagram:
In my diagram everyone interested in genealogy fits in one or more of the three categories. But only where two or more categories overlap do the genealogists share a particular persuasion. You can see that it is my opinion that there are only a very small number of researchers that recognize the relative importance of all three areas. So now we look at the issue of a photograph. It is obviously of interest to a history genealogist. But maybe the other two have no need for photos especially when the names of the individuals in the photos, places and other details about the photos amy be entirely lacking.
I did not make these ovals proportionate to the size of the groups. If I had, the oval for the names and dates group would be so large that the other two would not be visible. The only group likely to value photos is the history group. My guess is that anyone reading this post is likely in somewhere in the center sharing an interest in all three areas.
So, the real answer to the question in the title is "it depends."