I personally think it completely depends on the venue and demographic you intend to market to. In Per's case (being somewhat familiar with Per) I think it may make some sense. I don't see it so much as taking a stand in some kind of anti D ethical sense, but more as a stand as an artist. Per's work is outstanding, and I think his mastery of the analog process and the collect-ability of his work enables him to take such a position and be largely devoid of self aggrandizement. I think the majority of us are in a different boat. Personally, when I have exhibited in venues that are primarily digital I have welcomed the comparison, however there is no question in my experience that the average patrons of such venues are more reluctant to spend real money. Few prints were sold at any price. Pedestrian exhibits tend to attract pedestrian people, at least in regards to buying photography. (I'm not saying they aren't perhaps fine people in other ways, they just seem to not believe in spending money on art.)
I think the idea here concerns the physical artifact of the print as the product of the artists work and the end result of the process, and the manner in which the artists perceives their own work and the control they wish to exert over the exhibition of it. This can be hard to grasp until you have sold a few physical prints, but what I realized after a while is that each print was transcendent from the image, it was a thing and that thing was inherently imbued with specific qualities by the kind of thing it was, and very definitely walked hand in hand with the image form the experience of being present as real physical artifact, much like a sculpture or painting. I don't find an artist to be self aggrandizing when they claim to have made a watercolor or an oil as opposed to a "painting". Why should it be different for photographers? This personal perception is for me where a photographic print departs from an image. That the images are compelling and attractive to many people is in Per's case a given, so I feel the assertion about the image being a good one by any means isn't particularly pertinent to Per's position. Per's prints are damn fine both technically and aesthetically, easily among the best I have ever seen, so if you like his kind of vision that part is way way in the bag.
That said, I have exhibited alongside some pretty lacking analog prints, and although I can't say what the difference is from one point of view, from another I do see the need for traditional prints to re-establish an identity as a process. I don't think the idea of resisting the current trend to homogenize image making by any means into one broad category needs be perceived as elitist. Prior to the Borg enlargements were enlargements, contact prints were contact prints, platinum was platinum, etc. and nobody got their panties in a bunch at all. These days if you wish to simply acknowledge your process you are almost instantly accused of being hung up on it. I vehemently disagree with that and feel folks that have mastered a process to the point where it is a unique statement to a specific medium are very right to tout their mastery of that medium. I think that most who say process is irrelevant haven't bothered to truly master one.
The winner of the Indy 500 doesn't just win some car race, that persons wins a particular race with a particular kind of car on a particular kind of course. Is the driver wrong to reveal he drove an Indy car? Should they now need to race in the Daytona 500 with the Indy car? Stock cars and Indy cars are both highly specialized things at the pinnacle of their individual discipline but only an ignoramus would assert they were the same thing. Per is to my mind just choosing not to drive an Indy car in a stock car race.
My initial reaction to this thread was to shut it down or send it to the soap box as a simple anti-digital rant, but I have restrained myself so far as the discussion has been for the most part cordial and not particularly adversarial. How, where, and other details of the prints we exhibit is a valid topic as long as it doesn't degenerate into simpleness, so I hope folks will keep this in mind when posting, and hopefully folks will continue to walk the fine line. If it does degenerate, I'll send it down.