[my opinion]An image created by traditional darkroom practices - if it looks exactly the same as an image created by modern digital methods will hold no special meaning for it's production to anyone viewing it unless the notes on which are viewed along side the image. Only the originator or each final image will feel any connection with and defend it's method of production against the other.[/my opinion] There are skills attributed to both methods of production ranging from choice of film and how it is developed to create a negative (personal preferences in contrast and tonal values etc.). Then there is the paper choice, chemical choice for developing the paper - whether a water bath is used to bring out highlights, whether the paper is flashed before using the neg.. and so on.. then there's all the other stuff involving cotton wool/cardboard and other bits and pieces. Compared to digital (I'm pretty mew to this side of things I must confess) in which you don't get wet, covered in toxic chemicals and see less daylight than a vampire Image manipulation using software is a skill in itself to bring out the best in an image. six and two 3's spring to mind - each has its followers and each has its benefits. I don't have the room for a darkroom set-up. I wish I did as I have everything for one. What I do have is a computer and a digital camera with the ability to try and create that which I used to. If that makes any sense? One to me isn't better or worse than the other, it is merely a different way of achieving the same goal.