Has digital photography devalued the photograph?

After contributing to a forum on mycourse I started to think more about the discussion and my actual opinion on the subject.

FORUM
The below quote comes from an interview with the photographer Ricky Adam about his forth coming book Destroying Everything. The Analogue V Digital argument is an ongoing one that may never be resolved satisfactorily.   

"What role does post production play?  Is there a difference between working with chemicals and working in a ‘Digital’ darkroom as far as the ‘Legitimacy’ of the final image?
So long as the image hasn't been manipulated in any way a good photo is a good photo, regardless of what sort of camera was used to take it.  You have to be a lot more resourceful when shooting film.  For one you shoot fewer photos, but in doing so I think you learn a lot more about composition, lighting, etc.  I often wonder how many more photos I would have it I could have shot digital when I first started out?  Would I even have pursued photography? Possibly not...''
The rest of the interview continues and can be seen here.

I read the interview by Ricky Adam and the other comments submitted by members of my class.  I found out I completely agreed with what most of them were saying about the same topic.
''So long as the image hasn't been manipulated in any way a good photo is a good photo, regardless of what sort of camera was used to take it.''  In my opinion, this is so true.
Some of the other girls said they would rather see an image in exhibition on a gallery wall which had been created on a cheap film camera rather than a post digital SLR which would have cost the photographer a bomb to purchase.  I could relate to this as I thought exactly the same!

I don't know, maybe I only have this view on the subject as I was introduced to photography as Sixth Form through the use of black and white film.  But I can still remember that initial proud feeling of holding my first print - physically taken, processed and developed through the darkroom chemicals.  I guess I was very lucky, some people didn't have access to these facilities before University and started off with digital - In this case, they would probably have an oppositional view to me.

People say analogue photography is now dead and digital has taken over completely but I don't think this is correct at all.  Yes, of course the practice is becoming less common, especially due to the expense of resources nowadays.. but I would still much rather produce film work over any digital piece.  It forces me to think more about what shots I am taking, with a limited amount of negative you have to get the framing, lighting and composition etc. perfect before you take the photograph.
Whereas, when I shoot on digital I seem to just press the shutter, not really thinking hard about what I am capturing - knowing I can view it straight away (altering whatever is wrong).

Talking about the 'legitimacy' of the final photograph.  When U view an image I am much more likely to feel that a film shot has better representation of 'truth' over digital, simply because I know how much post-production manipulation can alter the appearance these days.

Continuing with this idea of manipulation..
Yes ok, I will admit that when working with digital I use Photoshop more often than not to edit my photographs afterwards.  It is such an easy access post-production program which allows photographers to enhance, change and distort their images completely.  I don't tend to dramatically transform my photographs, but I have seen work which has been manipulated beyond original recognition.
In my eyes I don't see a photography like this as 'legitimate' at all - and to all artists who produce this work, can you still be called a 'photographer' or simply a computer genius'?