Digital photography is the new holy grail. No one who just spent a kilobuck on a postage stamp size ccd with a lens that is 1/4 wide wants to hear that his new toy is anything less than all that. To even suggest there might be an advantage to reducing silver ions will cause a rain of mudslinging that will cause you to duck and take cover. I tend to work backwards from the end product. I can't get a digital image to look as good as a print made from a 4x5 neg in a 11x14 or larger size for non comercial (other than fine art sales) purposes. So I adjust exposure and development to compress or expand the contrast and use tanning developers to restrain local contrast and dodge and burn and -- -- -- sounds kind of manipulated. Then I want to post the image and I have to do all that in photoshop as well just to match what I strived for on the print. I know that photographers sometimes keep sky shots to put a nicer sky behind a building or scene they like - Photoshop just makes it easier. Nope. Didgital just took what we were already doing and made it a little faster - sometimes better and sometimes worse - I have yet to see an unsharp mask work as well on the PC as it does in the darkroom. It is not a cut and dried answer to this one - we tend to remember how we felt when we saw something and that drives us to make an idealized image anyway.