As a professional printmaker of photogravures, etchings, etc., I don't think most serious collectors spend much time worrying about the "purity" of an image with regard to the intrusion of digitalia. Collectors are usually curious about process, but they don't usually allow digital/non-digital to dictate the worth of an art object to them. The borders between media are so porous these days, it seems fetishistic to me to fixate on whether any digitization is used on an image. I think situational ethics dictate that one be transparent about how an image was made if gallerists, curators, or collectors inquire. But, as has been stated earlier, nobody thinks about this as hard as you will. I use everything from 30"x40" copy cameras and view cameras to scanners and digital cameras to make images and can't imagine limiting myself to one way of working anymore. IMO, thinking digital "intrusion" into image making cheapens photography or is "easier" than the old school wet processes is reactionary oversimplification. In some respects, digital is easier in the ways it allows an image of some competence to be created. But if anything, that "ease" makes it even harder to make great art. How so? The greater plethora of choices digital imaging introduces requires ever greater restraint, insight, and developed aesthetic sensibilities to harness productively. Case in point - we've all seen WAY too many beautiful but vapid digital images of hyped up HDR landscapes too good to be true. All this reminds me of Fred Picker's funny anecdote about an attendee to one of his large format workshops. He said "You've spent days teaching me how to expose and develop film, days on printing, and how to set up and use the camera. But, you've still not told me where to point the camera!"