So I'm going about my housework, taking a break from processing a few bunches of digital photo sessions. I start to think about how much I'm "touching" the photos - tweaking color, exposure, cropping. I do this with almost every photo I take - some don't make the cut and get deleted outright.
Years ago I processed film at a one hour photo place. We processed everything from disk film (blasphemy of photography!) to medium format (6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x7). Thus, we processed a lot of professional photographers stuff - weddings, portraits, whatever. They didn't do it themselves; they didn't touch it. We did the negatives and the proofs. They often had us print photos up to 11x14; some would print their own larger sizes, many more would send out to someone else to print those as well.
This is not to say that at least some of these people didn't "touch" certain special negatives or prints. With the studio that I interned under, the wife would touch up negatives, and the husband/photographer would print his own larger prints with archival materials. (And yes, folks, that's a change from regular photo paper!). However, once again, most material was sent out to have someone else develop.
So, how is working in digital less art, as some "purists" would argue? I think they are wrong. I think that digital photography is as much art as any other form.