I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of those who care about the process, are those who have struggled with and enjoyed the process.
The others who care about the process are either those who have learned from others that the process matters, or those who, being impressed with the print, have expended the effort to learn how it was done, and to appreciate how it was done.
The process imbues a character and quality into the print (or transparency, or motion picture). Other characteristics and qualities are imbued by the steps taken in framing, focusing, exposing, editing, and possibly manipulating the intermediate physical or electronic media.
I think back to something my father said on more than one occasion. He worked for Kodak for more than 1/3 of a century, and the labs he worked in (in the customer service and marketing divisions) processed millions of miles of movie film.
On the west coast of Canada, we were probably near the outer edges of the North American commercial movie distribution system. If we went to a movie as a family, he would be absolutely irritated by a scratch or other defects in the "print". As I became more and more involved in the photographic world, more and more I'd share the same response. I am confident, however, that most of the audience barely noticed those scratches and defects, because their mind set would allow them to see past them.
That doesn't mean that the same audiences would be oblivious to a pristine print that revealed wonderful cinematography. It just means that they weren't so attuned to it.
This thread is very much a question about perception. Perception is one of those things that is most influenced by experience and education.
When it comes to prints, I probably get too close, and look too carefully at the details. I think it comes with the territory, but I need to reduce the tendency.
Matt |