I think both are equally important.
Given the fact that Ansel Adams, I don’t believe, ever made a print “straight” from his negatives. They were manipulated in the darkroom. He had “cheat sheets” that told him what dodging and burning was required each time he made a print.
Now…I’m going out on a limb here and say that photo manipulation in Photoshop, i.e. any post processing program, is equivalent to manipulation in the darkroom, just a hell of a lot easier and more versatile.
I speak from experience on this because before I retired, I owned and operated a business called Custom Monochrome. We specialized in B&W processing and printing for pro photographers. We operated it from 1985 till digital became good enough for pros to abandon their film for pixels.
I have no ill feelings toward digital, just the opposite. It has created a whole new cottage industry, and made good photography available to those who otherwise would not have ventured into the art. Not too many people today, would be willing to stay in the darkroom, slosh film and paper around in chemistry. I had 10’s of thousands of dollars invested in enlarging and processing equipment. And…I still have it. Anyone want to buy a $12,000.00 Ilford 20 inch paper processor? :)
The only thing I regret, going digital, is that I have never been to duplicate the grain structure of Tri-X, shot at ASA 400, processed for 15 minutes in a 1:50 dilution of Agfa Rodinal. I'm still working on that.