"Comparisons are odious and its like comparing a painting with a fine pen and ink drawing."

Artistically speaking I totally agree. Additionally I would argue there must be some kind of accepted quality benchmark for equipment to render a likeness of the original subject in as faithful photographic capture as is possible. This is not related to the photographer's or printmaker's individual vision or artistry, but to industrial benchmarks?

Taking that (technical) pursuit of faithful capture as a benchmark, the chosen output is then of course down to taste. And I too am sure that silver, bromide, platinum, polaroid, etc etc prints will be around for scores of decades yet.

Hells teeth, people make slides from digital captures and then print using chemicals, just the same as people scan negs and slides and then print them on ink or lightjet.

Huazzah!

>>Maybe it is just personal preferences, but it is not just about the quality of camera lens and format size. Of course, 35mm and a tiny lens can never hope to pick up the detail that larger formats can, but I have yet to see a digital print which isn't harsh and contrasty when compared with the gorgeous tones and texture of silver prints.

This one nicely demonstrates the whole gamut of tones is well within range of the Canon 1Ds
http://www.pbase.com/image/55441617 and I would bet my last flash card that if this were presented as a medium format print it would be repeated in glowing terms that digital just doesn't have 'it'.

Tysons prints are artworks for sure but I do object to the idea that people who work in darkrooms are the 'real artists' as you put it. This would mean that craft is the greater part of the art of photography, I would see it very differently. Ansel Adams has plenty of thick books about the tricks of enhancing images in the dark room, do you think if the technology we have now was available then he would not use it if it suited his means of expression?
Whether the creation of an image was done painstakingly in the darkroom or painstakingly on the computer screen or taken straight from the camera to the lab means nothing if the photo lacks soul. You cant transfer that to any of the mechanical processes of capturing and presenting an image. Doesn't really matter to me what camera/format/process is used, if the resulting image doesn't tell you something beyond the visual representation either about the subject or the artist then that is how I will judge its worth. The male of the species has been obsessed with tools ever since Ug's axe was smoother than Gug's :)