is a recording more REAL if it sat on a LP or a tape or even a CD, than if it sits in a hard drive or memory card?
Digital
does represent an advance over film in many ways, and to me it is real photography. Digital tends to be more consistently reliable and of high quality - compare e.g. film era point and shoots to digital ones. Apart from the time delay and 'some surprises' in the positive sense, film can be a royal PITA with its foibles and failures. With film you need to build up experience and knowledge more than with digital.
As much time as Photoshop can eat, it's nothing compared to what a darkroom can swallow.
Though the average quality level of digital is more democratic than that of film, both methods reward and require attention and skill to achieve their best.
So what's left for film? Speaking for amateur hobbyists, and myself in particular: Medium Format has a look, and that look today can be achieved economically only with film. Even what's called 'full frame' 35mm is still more economically bought via film cameras. Films can have character that can be used to advantage. Film equipment can be bought used for very little money. The elaborate back up and safekeep strategies of digital storage are avoided with film - though film does take up space over time and needs some care in its storage.
With film you have the option and temptation to get off the current marketing plan - you're not looking at a new round of cameras each year making yours obsolete, and you may not even have to be tempted by the newest auto everything zoom. Instead, ebay periodically starts to call you...
With all of the above, what it all adds up to is this: with film I have more variety available to me than with digital. I get to use vintage equipment that has a nicer feel and look to me.
But, if doing macro work or trying out lighting schemes or needing fast results or lots of photos, digital is the way to go.
ps.
film photography is not to digital photography what real sex is to online sex