Film is film and digital is digital. So why mix the two? Because that's what scanning film is. I've seen it argued that digitising film is missing the point. That shooting on film is all about the chemical process, developing and also of course, printing. So some 'purists' may argue anything other than a true chemical process is 'fake' and not 'the real thing'.
But of course all of this is b******s. As ever it's the final image that is the important thing here. If you are the kind of person that likes to sit around with a small circle of enthusiasts and bang on about arcane printing processes, to the exclusion of everything else, then you are welcome to it. Because while film is certainly different to digital in the way that it looks, it looses little (in fact nothing at all) by being scanned. Plus the fact that it is then possible to manipulate it in a 'lightroom' on a screen, rather than in a nasty, smelly and probably toxic darkroom is a bonus.
I've never been one to try and recreate the past. Just as using a manual everything Leica film camera shooting black and white has nothing to do with genuinely creative modern street photography, then not employing the powerful digital editing tools we have available to us these days is just another ridiculous narrowing of possibilities that many seem, unfortunately, to like. And yes I appreciate the history of photography and alternative ways of creating images that existed in the past, but I see that as an option rather than a creative straight jacket. I prefer to explore rather than restrict. Because after all, isn't that what being a 'creative' is all about?