art photography and selling prints

Hi there,
I'm curious to know whcih direction fine art
photographers are taking in terms of selling limited editions of their
work in an era where digital photography has reached a point where
digital quality is now of comparable quality, in most cases, to film.

Specifically, I'm intersted to know whether many are still confining
themselves to fine art prints using the traditional mediums of
negatives and photographic papers, or are now availing themselves of
the opportunity and ease of using digital equipment and high quality
ink-jet printers? Obviously the modern technology makes it much easier
to control the end result, and to print off 100 copies at the press of
a button, but I'm left wondering what this does in terms of selling
limited quantities at top dollar, the value of the work as a long term
investment, and so on. Buying an Ansel Adams print one knows straight
away that one is investing in a work of art that has been individually
crafted in the darkroom by the master himself, with all of the
flashing, dodging, masking etc, that went into each and every print.
Does a digital and computer generated print hold the same value to a
collector, even if the image is limited to the traditional small
quantities?

The reason I ask is purely out of curiosity. I'm a wood working
craftsman and attend fine art & craft shows across the country, and
one of my favourite activities, during the few quiet moments I get
during a show, is to walk the aisles and take in the work of various
photographers. Some, like Steve Vaughn with his large panoramic
images, are obviously using printing processes to mass produce their
images for mass consumption, which is great. What I'm more curious
about is whether fine art photographers - people like Les Sleznick,
for example - with their numbered and limited works, are doing the
same or sticking to the traditional print, produced in the darkroom,
for maintaining he integrity of their work as collectible pieces of
art. From an investment point of view I'm also curious how wary buyers
might be of printed output with a view to longevity - many of the
manufacturers of high end printers claim their inks give prints a
minimum lifetime of at least 100 years, and of course one has to say
that normal prints themselves can deteriote over time if not properly
fixed and/or are subjected to too much sunlight over time.

Any comments or thoughts would be much appreciated. It would simply be
interesting to know how art photographers are viewing and ultilizing
new technoligies and what dollar effect it has on their output as both
a work of art and as a collectible item.

Thanks......Tim