It's true that you can't polish a turd.
Dragging a classic Ansel Adams image over the top of your own to create a theme or motif, is not going to turn your image into a masterpiece. Nor is it going to make you stand out -- there's more to the image than just processing. You only have to look at the garbage posted in one of the links in my signature to see how true that is.
Furthermore, this tool isn't going to replace compositional theory, balance, metering, or the understanding of (good) light and its use to make or break an image. Some people have an eye for photography; when their eye looks through the viewfinder, they subconsciously "see" a good image; there's no effort involved -- it just happens. Others don't have a clue.
This new thematic tool will deliver results to people who already know what they're doing, and, will just enhance to a degree what already is a good image to start with. The rest will be polishing turds or having fun.
I can see a couple of practical uses for this tool already -- for photographic essays and wedding photography, for example -- for consistency in white balancing, contrast enhancement and shadow detail.
I'll continue to dodge and burn my images in Photoshop (the digital darkroom), because that's what I would also have done in a darkroom if I had the opportunity. Unfortunately (fortunately?) I'm not as old as some of the previous posters, and, despite having a camera in my hands for half my life, my experience with film and the darkroom is very limited. I hope to resolve this issue soon by purchasing a medium or large format system. Having said that, I can't for the life of me see the advantage in /not/ knowing what you've captured (apart from the excitement of picking up your roll from the chemist) and be able to delete it immediately (not wasting film) if you don't like what you've just captured. If that's what defines a real photographer from a phoney, then, I'm as phoney as they come.
H