I know that the Urban Sketching movement is growing rapidly nowadays, and the ease and convenience of digital has a lot to do with that. New "on-site" tools and advice are being developed all the time.
https://www.creativebloq.com/how-to/create-digital-plein-air-paintings
https://thevirtualinstructor.com/blog/plein-air-painting-on-a-tablet
https://magazine.artstation.com/2020/07/plein-air-painting-in-procreate-with-mike-mccain/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6q_X5T30sA
https://paperlike.com/blogs/paperlikers-insights/en-plein-air-urban-sketching-ultimate-guide#kot7kaq9v3-
In my opinion, work that embraces the "digital" aesthetic will result in imagery that only digital can create. So from a certain perspective, photo-bashing and photoart (digital images that use photographic assets and manipulate them) might be the closest one can get to a purely "digital" expression. Even with traditional photo collage, it's impossible to achieve some effects without using digital tools.
Regarding whether it's irrelevant to create traditional looks using digital tools: I think it all has to do with the purpose and function of the resulting image. Is it for a type of commercial work that wants a traditional feel? Is it for a specific demographic of collectors? Keep in mind that digital tools have enabled a huge shift in the nature of the workflow in many different types of industries, and conversely the traditional art world has continually needed to redefine what is "traditional" and what isn't (look at your various Art Fair applications and their stipulations on what they'll allow as an example). The lines between the two are getting more and more blurry all the time.
So no, I don't think creating "traditional-looking" work digitally is pointless. I think it depends on whom you're making the work for, what you plan on doing with it, and where you imagine it's going to end up.
I also think, however, that there's a specific kind of consumer that marvels at how "real" digital work looks, and that's the same kind of consumer that thinks the closer to photographic realism a piece can get, the better it is. Witness all the digital art that looks like photography. I think the movie industry, for example, is still stuck in the "more realistic = better" paradigm, and as much as we've moved toward that there is also a burgeoning desire to express and experience stories using Symbolism, Expressionism, Abstraction, and all the other isms that can't be replicated with "real". Children's Illustration is the field that embraces this paradigm the most, I feel. The recent animated Spiderman movie that embraces non-realistic appearance as a storytelling tool is an example of the desire to see work that isn't embracing "Pixar-Realism". There are ways to use digital tools that can render results that only digital can create, and validity in making those expressions.
So I guess there's value in both, honestly. Making something look as traditional as possible is awesome, but making something look digital is also great. I wonder if you just need to figure out where your balance is and what you want to do with what you make.