Aquamx, I know you directed your questions to James, and I hope that you don't mind me adding my 2 cents worth. Although I am still relatively new and still learning and experimenting, I have taken both the high tech and low tech methods for a test drive. While I cannot speak for other peoples' experiences, for me high tech is like walking a tight rope and I found it far more difficult to address nutrient deficiencies, and ensure appropriate c02 levels, and constantly tweaking fert dosing, not to mention keeping up with weekly water changes to maintain balance and stability and prevent algae formation. Like others when balance and stability in the high tech tank were dirupted, it meant tons of work to fix the issue and attempting expensive fixes like Fluorish Excel. While I am not saying that stability and balance are not important in a low tech tank, I have just found it much easier and less effort to maintain balance and stability in a low tech tank.
I think that masters such as Tom Barr best sum up why a low tech tank would be desireable as per this link.
http://www.barrreport.com/articles/4...2-methods.html
It really boils down to how much time, effort, and money someone wants to invest in this hobby. Going high tech is a lot more expensive over the long and short term than going low tech with low tech plants. And again from my experience, it takes much less effort to maintain a low tech vs high tech tank. But then, I guess everyone's goals are different so I cannot speak for everyone.
As far as form and growth are considered, I guess it is really a trade off. Personally, I would gladly take slower plant growth and slightly faded colors if it means better algae control, less money invested, and less effort looking after the tank. For me Diana Walstead best said it when she stated: "After all this is a hobby not a job."