Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

With digital technology even more can be done in the darkroom with inkjet printed dodging and burning masks.

http://phototechmag.com/an-introduction-to-selective-masking-part-i/
http://phototechmag.com/selective-digital-masking-part-ii/
http://phototechmag.com/selective-masking-part-iii-computer-techniques-for-the-traditional-darkroom/

Also, inkjet negatives have led to a massive increase in alternative process printing such as salt print and cyanotype because of the ability to print large negatives on inkjet printers.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

this explains why so very few digital users ever make prints.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

How exactly?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Actually, the color channels are very useful in producing B&W digital images. They allow you a much more precise control over how the colors translate into grey tones than using color filters with B&W film. Then there is that old darkroom standard, burning and dodging. What a pain it used to be to produce a quantity of B&W prints in the darkroom with a very complicated burning and dodging scheme and keeping them all identical. With digital you can make very precise selections with exactly the amount of feathering you want, and then use adjustment layers like levels and curves to lighten and darken areas without changing the original. You can adjust the midtones without losing shadow or highlight detail. And it's all done so you don't have to do it again every time you want to make a print, and you can go back and change the adjustments later.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I can find zero photos from you on this site, but more importantly, you may want to check out some of TheDman’s pictures. You may have been pressing the shutter for 59 years, but I have a feeling that you could learn a thing or two from him.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

i learned enough from Mr. Adams, in his dark room, to last a thousand years. also, digital is unable to produce the pure black which film provides. in the attempt to get there this is why god made the leica monochrom. and it is close, but still no cigar.

TheDman Loc: USA

You mean the same Mr. Adams who said this? "I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance." Looks like Mr. Adams would mastering his color channels if he were here today.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

That is a very cocky statement. I guess we just met the first photographer who knows it all. Now let’s se proof of that. So your shots should be superior to the TheDman’s

Hank Radt

Sorry guys, but this topic has degraded to the point where the vitriol outweighs the insights. Keep slinging if you want, but I'm unwatching.

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

If you don't recognise those names, you are not a real photographer. Your a snapshooter.

Dabe Loc: Southern Missouri, Ozarks

"Some people are sure sensitive." Sounds to me like that would be you.
You asked a bit of an inflammatory question, and apparently don't like the answer too well. I'm happy for you that you had the opportunity to learn photography when film was the only medium, you can count that experience as an advantage, but some of us were never afforded that opportunity. Civil war photographers might have felt like you were cheating with your timed shutter and your continuous roll of film, not to mention your flash bulbs or, God forbid, an electronic flash! Technology changes, get over it.
My first camera was a little plastic 110 that I had very little control over. Not much, but I worked at getting good at using what I had. I had conceived of a digital camera in my mind long before they became available. I scraped and saved for a long time to buy my first digital camera. It was a 1 megapixel with a 2X optical zoom, and I paid over $300 for it. Money was a little harder to come by back then. I was still very limited, but I managed to capture some images with it that are priceless to me today. My next camera was a Canon bridge camera with 14 megapixels, 35X optical zoom, and most of the control that a DSLR offers. It cost me over $500, but I was soon capturing images that closely rival anything I've been able to capture with my DSLR. When I made the leap to DSLR it took me over a year to learn enough to exceed the results I was getting from that bridge camera. The point is that cameras and computers don't compose good photos, photographers do, and while I may never be a "real photographer" in your book, in my book I am. So stop feeling cheated and embrace the new technology available to you.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

an interesting aside, from the usual, why don't we see your photographs garbage is the latest info in the digital imaging trade magazine. it seems wedding photographers are switching back to film, as the results are superior to digital when printed. ho hum. nothing like the "new" technology.