At great personal risk, first I'll preface this with the usual "this is only my opinion, your mileage may vary, blah blah blah."

Three points:

1. Not all of us are able to maintain, borrow or rent wet darkrooms, for various reasons. But we still shoot film. What's wrong with making use of inkjet technology to make prints from my negatives that in some cases are equal or better than what I could have done in a darkroom?

2. A bad print is a bad print, whether it's a silver print or an inkjet. If this is relatively agreeable, then the converse could also be true - a good print is a good print, regardless of the process involved.

3. Shooting on film and scanning for inkjet printing can yield better, worse or the same results as shooting film and printing on conventional photo paper. I get a bit mystified by people who only talk about how a print was made, as if that trumps things like composition, lighting, mood, or emotional impact of the image.