Whoops, my reply to Brians comment about making alterations in photoshop being easier than darkroom techniques seems to have sparked off a debate....sorry!
I agree that the end result is, for most people, the goal that one is heading for, wether that be to display on a screen, or as in my case to print.
To anyone unbeknowing, when they see those results, they pretty much have no idea, nor do they care wether they originally stemmed from film or digital, nor what PP process they received.....If the resulting photograph is pleasing to the individual then those factors are irrelevant.
As a hobby / pastsime, the whole point for me is to enjoy what I'm doing.
If it was just a matter of obtaining the end result then it would be as if I was doing photography as a job as against doing it for self pleasure.
However as an amature tog, who enjoys the, for want of a better word, analogue processes of film, the journey as StehenM states, is an important aspect.
I have mentioned in previous posts, on numerous occasions how PP for me of any given scanned negative rarely exceeds 10 minutes simply as sitting in front of a computer screen clicking a mouse etc offers me a similar satisfaction to what shooting digital does.......Very little!!
I will, and I do shoot digital but I have yet to feel the same amount of satisfaction from the process involved in obtaining any given photograph.
Once the photo is printed however, depending upon the content / subject matter, it may please me enormously, possibly more so than some of my film shots nonetheless I often wish that I had captured the scene on film.........in the same way, I wish I had access to a darkroom to for wet printing as opposed o using PS and an inkjet printer........................Simply because, for me , these methods are more enjoyable.