Experiences and mileage may vary, but I used to get a lot of people very excited by my Doctor Who work because it was traditional physical media and they had seen so little of it.  I haven’t noticed a lot of disparity between the two types when I put out fanwork in general, though it’s hard to measure something like that perfectly without putting out exactly the same image in both media or something.   Based on my own experience, I would think the reason most of the art you see is digital is because it’s ‘easier’ on many levels.  There’s no mess or extra space taken up to do it, you don’t have to scan or photograph it, extreme lighting and effects are vastly easier to create, and it’s something that doesn’t have to be paid for more than the cost of the tablet and/or software once.   (My work right now is largely digital because of this - the bleeding into my retina nonsense has made doing things traditionally more challenging so even though I’m truly happiest painting in the physical realm, I’m making it work with digital at the moment.)

There’s something to be said for most of the media we see being digital in some manner, too.  All the animated shows we’re watching aren’t painted cells anymore, they’re digital.  Manga art that used to be airbrush is digital.  Disney has been all CGI for ages.  Photographs of humans are more digital.  Everything is HD rendered down to people’s pores.  So there’s a Shiny to the mass media that kind of lingers as The Norm.  I don’t think there are many, if any, people who consciously think, ‘ugh, real ink’ by any means, they just don’t see the ink processed nicely as often as they see digital things that are naturally crisp and internet-ready and so they gloss over it.  

So I think what is critical is having a good scanner and a good grasp on the digital cleanup of a traditional image.  One of the big things I keep being asked about my deer painting is how I got it to look so nice and I’ve discovered people are asking about the quality/clarity/etc of the final scan.   I was baffled for a while (”I just… scanned it?”) but I think I’m just used to cleaning things in a way that not everyone is seeing or thinking to do!

I’m not saying ‘punch up your traditional work with digital effects’ to the point of like adding lensflares or anything -  you definitely don’t have to add digital elements to traditional media to make it worthwhile or enough - just invest in having a nice scanner and learn how to counteract the effects of transfer to the digital realm.  Things like cancelling out indoor lighting conditions if you took a photo, or adjusting levels so white paper is actually crisp white on the screen and not slightly beige.  A scanner can leave a bit of a haze on images and dull some colors, sometimes unevenly, so bringing them back to the hues you see in real life will help other people see on screen what you see on your desk. 

So I wouldn’t be too quick to assume people don’t or won’t like your work because of how it is made, they might just miss it because of what they have been primed to expect (shiny, digital, extremely clean).  If you’ve got a skill and you’re presenting it well, people will see it.   Digital artwork is native to a computer screen, but physical paper is not, so you just have to help with the translation.  

I hope that’s some kind of help!  I don’t know where you are in your art-making adventure, so I apologize if I’ve completely missed the mark as far as what you needed or wanted.