Well, it all depends ...

[Torus34]

Let me start by saying I'm super-pleased to see that the digital vs. film wars are over and peace reigns once more. Thank goodness! I no longer feel guilty toward my 'Tribe' when toting either type of gear. This is a very good thing indeed.

That said, I'd like to note what is, perhaps, a holdover from those unfortunate days.

Many different techniques have been used in film photography to gain specific effects: textured paper, solarization, toning, selective blurring, IR spectrum film, filters, pattern overlays and litho are but a few.

On the digital side, there are also a huge number of techniques available. Many of them can be subsummed under the heading 'Photoshop(r).'

Here it comes:

Why do we so rarely see a picture made with traditional techniques critiqued as 'overtextured' or 'over-toned' while we run into 'over-shopped' time and again? Are we seeing a double standard?

Or does it all depend ...

 

[Iron Flatline]

There is a misconception that Photoshopping is easy. Push a few buttons, run an action, scrub the mouse around the desk a few times, and voilà. The film equivalent is considered hard work and high art, pursued alone amongst caustic chemicals in pursuit of creative expression.

 

[Garbz]

Indeed. The automated actions that can be bought online is the technical equivalent of hiring someone to come to your dark room and get a particular effect for you. Photoshopping properly is not easy and there is a lot to learn.