There's a huge market for digital/photoshop out there. We just have to accept that and go on doing what we believe in. Not everyone has the same understanding we do.
I can tell when I'm looking at a digital image. The human eye can resolve 120 megapixels. I don't keep up with digital technology, but I'm guessing the high end cameras record 20 megapixels. I think at some level my eye sees pixellation, even though it's not obvious. Then there are the shades of gray. Digital records a discrete number of shades per "photosite" on the image sensor. Our eyes are used to seeing more variation. Film's shades are continuous, not discrete, more like what the eye sees. Film capture and traditional printing, when done well, can make the image feel three-dimensional. That's what digital lacks, and that the main reason why I shoot film.
I'm curious, if digital technology ever exceeds what the eye can resolve, if I'll still be able to tell the difference.
I don't think of digital images as art, at least what I've seen thus far. There was a digital exhibit at the Amon Carter a few years ago - a photographer retraced the Lewis and Clark expedition and took digital photographs along the way. My husband and I were both unimpressed. The images were flat and on some level, the color balance didn't seem right. I seem to recall they were inkjet prints. No offense meant to the photographer (I don't remember his name) - it was a great idea for a collection of images, but I wish it had been done on film and printed the old fashioned way.
Keep doing what your gut tells you is right. Make photographs that are beautiful to your own eye and everything else will fall into place.