... and in some ways, I understand him. 

After the darkroom effects by people like Sabattier, Man Ray, Dutto, we had the psychedelic era. (Ever tried a colour solarisation in the darkroom?). Then came the era of filters. Remeber the vignettes for wedding shots, softers for the babies etc? Remember the multiprisms,...?
It's not that filters aren't ok, but they have been overused, and often by incapable people. Subtle use can make the difference, but when it becoms blatant, it becomes a bore.

Same goes for Photoshop. First of all, many things become easy. Want a Sabattier effect? Get your black and white (or colour) capture, copy it to a second layer, make this copy negative and set the blendmode to difference. The same thing on paper in the darkroom required a lot of skill, and/or serendipity. Unsharp mask, go to effects and use it. Even edge sharpening is included in CS2.

Second: the filters in photoshop have been misused, abused by too many people who simply wanted "an effect". Is this bad, or a critique? No; everyone is free to do as he or she pleases. But when you use it for a longer time, the fun corrodes because you recognise the effect all too easily. Yet superb things can be done with the filters. And have already been done.

Third, when you print your black and white on your four inks home printer, the result is meagre when compared to a baryte print from a negative. Yet, when either you get a ten or so coloured printer with extra greys, or have a four coolour printer that allows "real" paper and is set to use for example Lyson(s four channel black, the difference becomes very small. Very, very small.

And last but not least: it helps when you have darkroom experience.

I guess that, like always, it boils down to the person who uses it, and not to what is used by the person.

Back to work.

There are no Borg. All resistance is fertile.