i think the answer is quite obvious... TO ME.
I'll go with the the "Photoshopper".
Ok, some clarifications... I'm assuming you're not talking about images so bad they can't be saved. or that the one who uses Photoshopper knows nuts about photography. If those were the case, then of course, it wouldn't be justified to ask the original ques in the first place.
Digital photography is a huge area. Unfortunately, many would choose (or rather unknowingly) not to learn about the post-processing. Speak to your amatuer frineds, even those who own mid-range DSLR's these days and you'll know. Everyone who owns a digicam would be so proud of their new toy. Slick, cute, slim, at least 5 MP, super zoom, anti-shake, etc etc. But when it comes to presenting their images or printing them out, Uh-oh... Many go stunned that there could be so much post-processing to do. Some who enthusiastically tried to embark on the journney of learning some photo-editing just gave up in the end. "Arghh, forget it. Just send them to the shops."
So what they get is often mediocre images or at least those that to a good photoshopper, can be salvaged or much more work that can be done to make them better.
Just on the topic of colour management alone can put many off. I don't think many really understand what this means. (Ok ok, I seriously don't either after reading much about it!) Read the postings on CS here and you can see all sorts of different replies on what you should do with your colours.
But if you are an average photographer, but hell of an expert on Photoshop, wow, you can produce magic I think. Look at the works of those experts and you know what I mean. Surreal images, etc. Cut and paste that makes you think it's real. Again, remember we're not talking the original images being craps to begin with.
Why digital then, or why is film dying?
The general appeal of digital over films these days is clear: No need to mess around with films, digicams' design are more cool than film compacts, immediate viewing/download, snap/resnap at will, and digital is associated with another can't do without technology inthe 21st century: computers. It's almost like, if you own a computer, you got to go digital man.
That's why if you read M Yamashita's (National Geographic photographer) comment today in ST, he openly admits he's an expert on films, but knows little on digital and neither would he gladly embark on it due to the huge "learning curve" involved. One would think , hey just give him a Canon DSLR 1Ds Mk II body right? What's the diff from his EOS 1-v film body? Just press the shutter?
It's in the post-processing.