I know around these parts, I hear people say "Ohhh, this is a fiber print" or "Wow, a real cibachrome" and I'm not talking about people I've already infested with analog love.
I've recently had a request for a set of images because they are one of a kind in terms of being done by hand, that aspect of the print, was the icing on the cake for the sale.
For those in Toronto area wanting to see if the quality of Digital Output is up to snuff to enlarger prints.
One of these digital fibre prints we printed is hanging right now at Stephen Bulger Gallery . The Show has prints by Kertez, Winston O Link, and many other artists.
It does not look out of place.
If there is cultural value in a handicraft compared to a mass production item, then the answer is likely.
That said, there may need to be a qualitative difference, and in photos (or a lot of visual art for that matter) size matters.
A hand printed 4x6 is likely not going to get it done vs. whatever an inkjet can do.
I keep thinking of the value of the Steve Jobs portrait for the book cover of his biography, which was done with a 4x5 I believe. The irony will add value, no doubt.
I was speaking with a few photographers who aren't too young to have shot film. All now use digital but have used film in the past.
None of them had any idea what silver halide paper was.
I doubt the general public (even the general hobbiest photographers) gives a shit.
In a word, no.
Unless you mean vintage, you're fooling yourself if you think any but a few ancient old farts give a rat's pitoutie (sp?) about image process. Many buyers of fine art photography now invest preferentially in digital image making because of its new cachet.