As Ray points out, the main purpose for negatives is to be printed on enlargers, I am finding out by the month that more and more people want enlarger prints over digital scans and output.
As this is a hybrid site , the options beyond the original negative process are complex and many.
Maybe its nostalgia , maybe it is the look , but if the negatives are in good shape the decision to go to Enlarger prints is becoming more and more prevelant in my world. If price is not a concern then having a traditional Black and White enlarger print made is generally the way to go.
By having a first rate darkroom and equipment, split printing techniques, and lots of water , I personally can make a print that would be hard to mimic with digital PS work.
It can be done but I do not consider the clone tool any big deal over having clean negatives and environment in the first place.
This is true for Black and White, as the controls in the darkroom are much more available to the competent worker.
For Colour , all bets are off as PS does rule in todays working world.
Though , if time is not a concern, budget is not a concern then with complex masking techniques** sadly forgotten or never used** then I would say working in a Enlarger based darkroom can every bit equal working in PS in colour.
Most of what I see of PS work today would be labeled Kitch 20 years ago , Today blending two images or more is no big deal , everyone can do it and every one seem to want to today..
If I see one more photomerge or blend or HDR merge give me a brown bag I want to be sick.
The hue saturation tool should be banned from use until workers figure out what it really is for. I have never seen more putrid colours in my life when workers go apeshit on these controls.
In the past , only a few workers had the skill level , determination, patience and desire to manually work with multiple images.
Only a very few made it work with success, Jerry Ullesman comes to mind.
I can only think what Ray is referring to is the simple beauty of an enlarger print from a well exposed/developed negative.
It is very hard to mimic with a digital hybrid platform, and I wonder why one would want to mimic it.
I have seen some very beautiful work done by people on this site , large format and apug , who use a scanner and digital negatives to make , carbon, gum, platinum and gum over.
What is evident to me at least with all these workers is that the major benifit/reason is ease of workflow getting to a final negative for contact purposes. What I am not seeing with these workers is a lot of Manipulation in Photoshop to get to that final neg, basically a simple dodge/burn/contrast
adjustments that traditionally they would consider if working in a traditional workflow making enlarged negatives using a Durst.
Since my main area of interest is BW silver printing and colour printing, I cannot comment on the real differences between lets say a platinum done with a enlarged/neg or in/camera neg over one that is produced by a inkjet neg from a scan. But there are those here who have worked both ways and can comment on the differences.
I have clients that want me to work digitally only, and I have clients who want a hybrid workflow, and I have clients who want only enlarger prints.
Three -five years ago I started my digital quest as I believed at that time that enlarger prints were soon to be extinct. There was a dramatic drop in business that almost sunk my company.
Today to my pleasant surprise I am finding that enlarger prints are treasured and am printing many shows in this style. We do more hybrid type printing but there still is a constant flow of film processing and enlarger fibre prints.
I thought you and Ray are 
