I see the darkroom as a primitive computer that is fundamentally the same as photoshop. When pushed to the extreme it could be used to create surreal montages (Jerry Uelsmann), but it could also be used more gently (dodging, burning, bleaching, toning etc), to subtly enhance the scene that presented itself to the camera. What tools are you using in Photoshop that are so different to what was available in the darkroom?
I never felt any relationship between darkrooms and computers. Darkrooms are about gut reaction, the physical involvement and use of your body (hands, reach, arms, memory) whereas computers are about sitting on your ass, and monkeys writing Shakespeare. You just keep on truckin' until you get there, a possible difference being monkeys seldom read Shakespeare.
With darkrooms you were not able to do things as quickly, easily and seamlessly as you can with PS. I tried all the usual stuff such as using black/white negatives and exposing onto colour papers through CC filters etc. and it was crude in the extreme, and eventually pointless and unfulfilling. Because there is a difficult and inefficient manner of doing something is not its own reward if a better path presents itself; rather than reward it is representative of a loose screw. To be fair, I have not come across a better digital way of shading in skies than I used to do, by hand. I use Layers a lot; I use bits of purposely-shot "effects" files that sometimes fit my ultimate intentions and sometimes not, making me shoot something else to meet my needs to get to where I aim, stuff that never, of itself, is a picture, just an atmospheric awaiting use elsewhere.
There are really no limits to where this kind of thing can go; but as ever, I believe that for it to work, it has to look convincingly real to the extent that the viewer never asks himself the question in the first place. None of that "Jerry" stuff ever convinced me; it always looked to me like just another example of look what I can do! I don't think that's a valid purpose in the normal context of image appreciation.
(I do believe that darkroom experience saved me a lot of tears regarding making digital images: I came to the thing from a base of already knowing what a good print can look like. I believe that's a harder thing to do today.)
Of course this is all my personal take; what else can I offer?
To conclude, I'd suggest that I took greater pride in a good wet print, well-glazed, than I can today from looking at my own stuff on the Internet. The wet print tickled my pride in craftsmanship, whereas the digital world makes me feel that yes, I have managed to go somewhere new with a different kind of image with a modicum of success. However, as I got there via computer, I seldom escape that niggling "so what?" in my ear.
I suppose that's why I ultimately perceive the two forms of image-making as worlds apart.
