"In the end, the only thing that matters is the picture you make"

That's the cause of a lot of argument. I think there is a camp that subscribes to that notion, and a camp that firmly doesn't. Then there is the the problem that neither camp is really right or wrong. It all comes down to either personal preference or what the market wants from you. You may prefer a traditional capture with no artificial information added or manipulated (interpolation for one creates information that did not exist, sort of a false truth if you ask me), or you may not care and feel that if it looks like a photo, then it is a photo. Some may argue that photo chemistry and darkroom technique 'manipulates' the 'data' in traditional imaging, but I don't see that as being the same as what digital does. The film grain was originally there and chemistry can have an effect on it, with digital new 'grain' is created from nowhere, and existing 'grains' are sometimes completely changed into an entirely new form of data. Some gallery owners and collectors may find more value in a hand crafted item rather than a computer capture and inkjet print, so that would affect what you produce in a final product if that is your market. I'm of the camp that the final image is not all important. In fine art photography, for me it is about the image, but also about trying to capture an accurate moment in time that I was a part of, something that had an impact on me. For myself, and I stress,, for myself, digital completely removes that from the equation, therefore in unappealing..