I must admit I'm pretty tired of the standard digital vs traditional debate. I find the conversation typically centers around print quality. Which process produces the largest range of tone, most permanent image, deepest black, brightest white, most detail, sharpness, etc. Personally I find that both traditional and digital processes can produce excellent images.
There is one aspect of this debate that I don't often see discussed. I find it to be one of the most striking differences between the two methods. Traditional wet darkroom prints are unique hand crafted one of a kind works, typically created from exposure to print by the artist. The traditional photographer may strive for consistency from print to print, but in the end each print is a one of a kind creation. A digital print does not have this unique quality. The same digital file can be used to print a cheap poster or make a fine inkjet print on Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk, you can even email it to a printer and receive a "fine art print" in the mail.
Does the uniqueness of a traditional print and the process itself add substantial value to the work, or do you find that the quality and content of the image overides the method of creation? Is the medium an image is created in only a means used to deliver a photographer/artist's vision?
I am struggling with this topic in relation to my own work, especially considering some of the recent advances in digital and printing technology. Your thoughts would be appreciated.