What good is capture without presentation. You might just as well shoot a roll of film, or fill a memory card, and then toss them in the trash. How you present the image to others, or even just keep for yourself, means just as much or more than the snap that holds the image captive. It is true that a great print can only be had as caused by a great negative, but therein lies the quandry, you took a great shot(you think)but without showing it noone will ever know. Showing a shoddy print will tell people you are not a good photographer. Bottom line, great negatives demand comparable finished prints to convey what you wanted others to see.
I won't even debate cameraless prints, or slides, the discourse here is about capture vs print.
80% of what i do is on film and never printed or scanned.
i find it to do me a lot of good. sometimes i forget to put anything in my camera,
those images are easier to work with.
i don't think there is a difference
between putting an image on film or paper, it is the same thing,
whether there is an additional step ( printing or number-izing )
without the putting it on film or paper, there is nothing.
I've always said that the best way to improve your "photographing" (capturing?) is to learn how to do the printing at the end.
If you don't have any idea about how you want the final result to appear, how do you know what decisions to make when you are taking the shot in the first place.
I do think, however, that it is appropriate to accomplish much of this by becoming very "expert" at accessing the potential of a good lab.
Pick your poison. Individuals are unique and special snowflakes. For me printing is not easily dismissed because it is the process by where I define all my other efforts. As far as the work I do for self expression it is far more descriptive to call me a printer than a photographer, because the print is what I seek, although I enjoy the whole process. For me "capture" (I call it making a negative) is among the ingredients of expression, the print is the meal that I serve myself or anyone else who is interested. To me everything that happens until the finished print is the journey to a destination, the destination being the print, but then again, I'm a printer.
Interpreting the negative has traditionally been an intergal part of classic photography. There is a terrific thread that shows how different folks interpet their negatives here.
To me the print is everything. I feel that exposing film is pointless unless there is a print.
So, to me it can be enjoyable to be out with my camera to take pictures, but it is just one part of the whole picture. Processing film, proofing, editing, printing, and toning are all steps to reach my goal of the print. To me a print IS the photograph, so without it there is not photography.
My view, anyway.
An unprinted negative is not a "final work". Nor is a "negative scan".
Being a practitioner of hand-made emulsions and alt process printing, I am just slightly (just a teensy) bit biased :whistling:
I'm with Thomas and Jason, on this. The print is how I share whatever vision I had. In fact, while I'm composing an image, be it on GG or through a viewfinder, what I see is the finished print, if that makes any sense.
I never heard the term "capture" in the photographic sense prior to the digital age, which is why I have an aversion to it. Just semantics, I know...
Unless you are talking transparancies, the final piece of art is the print. There are choices at capture and in printing. The art is in the choices we make. The craft is executing those choices whether in capture or printing. Is capture or or printing more important? Both are necessary to have a great print.