IMO, digital photography using digital cameras, computers, printers, and associated software is different from photography using film, film cameras, and enlargers. The result is similar (but not the same): an image recorded onto a substrate like paper.
Because they are different processes and not the same, the differences give credence to a preference of one over the other. (If they were the same, a preference of one over the other would be silly.)
Some people prefer digital over film for all kinds of reasons.
Some people have no preference and use both.
Some people use a hybrid workflow which usually combines the scanning and digital printing of a film based image.
Some people prefer film over digital for all kinds of reasons.
Digital folks don't like film folks saying that film photography is superior, but it is a valid opinion (due to the differences).
Film folks don't like being told by digital folks that film and digital photography is just the same, because clearly the processes are different, and some folks see a greater value in certain (not all) hand crafted products (without computers and software applications.)
Some were asking how far back does one have to go before artisanal no longer applies, as if there has been a gradual evolutionary change in photography from wet plate to rollfim, to 135 film, to digital capture. There has in fact been a revolutionary change in photography, a quantum leap, with the advent of digital photography and its reliance on computers and software. Personally, I can not apply the term artisanal to digital photography.
This is just my opinion. Feel free to agree or disagree. See my signature.