Certainly, any kind of dogmatism about digital and analogue technique in photography is nonsense.* A technique is just a technique, and what counts in the end is always the way how it is used and which results are obtained. Yet, different techniques may well be accompanied by different tendencies how to proceed. (And I am my own object of study in this respect...)

When Urs Bernhard answered the question why he still uses large format cameras by saying "it is about shaping the picture in the camera" (please see this interesting and beautiful video about him), I was reminded of one such difference in tendencies: the difference between pre- and postprocessing. Pre-processing means to consider and to fix as much parameters of a photo as possible before taking it: choosing the frame, adjusting the perspective, observing the light, deciding the exposure. When all this is done, triggering the shutter is nothing but the final step. Post-processing means to make all these adjustments at home, at the PC screen. Exercising care in taking the photo becomes less important; triggering the shutter is only the beginning.

As far as the result is concerned, post-processing might well reach the point where most of the omissions in taking the photo can be made good for, so that the pictures obtained both ways might look quite the same. Yet, there is a difference between pre- and postprocessing, and it has nothing to do with photography in the first place. It seems to me that post-processing fits a peculiarity of our time perfectly: we want to have everything under our control, and at the same time we want to have all options all the time. When we opt for one of them all the others should remain available. In terms of photographical postprocessing: the camera should just register as many informations as possible so that afterwards any photo you like can be made from them. Taking the photo should involve as few commitments as possible. And since you can keep not only the original data but any intermediate version, you feel as if you would never lose any option. (If the hard disk is full, you buy a bigger one.)**

However, keeping all options open is an illusion. But it is a beguiling illusion, and some training is needed to overcome it: training that consists in deciding for one option and knowingly abandon all the others. "shaping the picture in the camera" (and using cameras which encourage it) could be one such training. This is one reason why I think the occasional use of analogue cameras is a good idea (at least for me...).

* Actually, I think dogmatism is never a good idea ;-)
** Of course, it is well known that also analogue photographers elaborated their negatives in different ways, sometimes going back to the same negative after many years, now seeing a different picture in them. Again, there is certainly no principled difference between the analogue and the digital way - it is a question of tendencies. Yet, I think the negative is much more commital than the RAW data of a digital camera. So there is a difference in tendencies...