Many interesting and valid points of view here. I'm most in line with the opinion that you can not over-think this issue. Actually, I've been thinking of little else for the last month or so. The image is important, yes. Maybe even of the highest importance. But, the process is also important.

I'm in perhaps a unique position in the photographic world right now (and how weird is it to say that!) No one else (who I'm aware of) is making a silver gelatin print from soup-to-nuts. The wet plate-to-alt process print folks are the only others in the neighborhood. In my case "uniqueness" equals consumer ignorance and this does not equal bliss. It has been nearly impossible to educate/convince/some other verb? people that my final prints and the negatives that produced them started from bottles of raw chemicals.

Most people don't care, nor should they be required to. If someone likes an image and the way it is printed, that's a stand-alone nice thing.

But, some do care. What I'm ending up deciding to do is to write a VERY detailed description of the work flow of a particular print, in addition to a VERY limited description of 'why' I bothered to make it. This is on the back of the print, but also available upon request -- as in: "For detailed information about this print, including how and why it was made, please ask at the desk." (or some such.)

It's hard for me to believe that the interested consumer should be denied information. Education is always good, but right now, during a state of transition and incredible diversity of photographic processes and approaches, it is also smart.

2 cents,
d