Interesting Debate...

IMHO nothing replaces a perfect exposure. There is no substitute for an exposure (digital, or film) that is well composed, cropped to perfection, properly lit and properly exposed in the camera. Anything less is a compromise.

Equally important, is that no amount of Photoshop, or traditional darkroom work will make up for a truly bad exposure. Poor composition, improper analysis or set-up of lighting, wrong aperture and/or shutter speed all lead to mediocre work at best.

With that said, I will also point out that the use of the digital darkroom has its advantages. One of the greatest assets of working in Photoshop is the ability to be able to analyze one's work quickly and efficiently. Personally, I think this is what most people fail to realize.

How many people actually think when they start working on an image, what is wrong with this exposure, and what could I have done to make it better. Probably not many. I would venture to say that most people get an image into Photoshop and then ask what can I do to fix it. This is great if your primary goal is to become a Photoshop Wizard. However, if you are not analyzing the exposure itself, then learning and correcting your mistakes at the time of exposure, you are waisting a valuable resource in becoming a better photographer.

Whether you want to do traditional work in a darkroom, or create incredible fantasies of montage work in Photoshop, the basics still remain. It all starts with making perfect exposures.