Credit - where credit is due

I was recently reviewing an exhibit catalog of Asian art and while looking through the credits was struck by the neglect shown to the person most responsible for the contents of the book.  The title page has the name of the exhibit, the name of the museum, the name of the curator (in bold), and the names of eight essay contributors.  At the back of the book there is a separate Contributors page in which brief bios are provided of each of these nine people.  The exhibit consists of approximately 300 items, photographically reproduced within the pages of this book.  Who is responsible for the photos?  That information is relegated to the Acknowledgements page.  After five paragraphs of thank you's, there is, in smaller type at the bottom, a section titled Reproductions, in which we at last find the name of the photographer.

Is it because the photographer is viewed as a technician that he doesn't rate the same credit as the essayist? Is this treatment typical at art institutions?  

#