What I saw in the digital realm was a tendency for people to give away the post-processing by never figuring it into the real costs. That's tougher to ignore when using film because of the hard currency paid to a lab or to buy supplies.
This revolution only became practical with digital, a darkroom in every home was never feasible, but a camera, a computer, and a printer in nearly every home is.
Plain and simple technology and the hard-goods suppliers that make those goods and the software companies that piggyback on that mass market created the self-printing revolution.
With the exception of a celebrity wedding, the entire market for the images I shoot at a given wedding consists of the Bride, the Groom, and the immediate family. My only practical hope for making more beyond that is from referrals that lead to more work.
There is a certain amount of profit I can reasonably expect to make on a given wedding in a given market. If I can out-do that normal amount of profit by "giving" them the negatives, I will.
From a business perspective they can either let me reduce my costs or pay me extra, to get me to that point, I don't care which. They also get full disclosure with regard to self-printing issues.
I learned this the hard way when post started kicking my tail. The more I shot and the bigger the album the harder I got kicked. People wanted big albums but weren't willing to pay fairly.
I make more real dollars now with my "shoot and proof" product because the cost is really low, my time commitment to a job is low, and it's something my market is willing to pay for.
I believe that most brides do not care about how we make our art, what really matters to them is the style and the look.
What we can get paid for well is things that they can't or don't want to do. Where we can show that we are different artistically or practically we can be paid nicely.