is it the process or the final print that is important?
Mel Stabin, in his book WATERCOLOR: SIMPLE, FAST, AND FOCUSED, says it is the process of painting that is important not the final product. (paraphrased of course) this got me thinking about my photography. At least the photography I did when I had the time to actually do it on a regular basis. I then looked at the number of unprocessed negs I have and realized that those final steps were not as important as the making of the photograph. Maybe I am screwed up but I really have very little desire to process and print those negs that are sitting there. I suppose I will get around to them but I am not in a rush. So for me it really is the process of taking that image that is important to me.
Now, I am in no way saying there is a right or wrong answer to this question and my way is definitely not the way of many others but I thought it was an interesting realisation.
So which is it for you?
__________________
Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI
So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004
I believe that to some the final print is of primary importance and they care little about the process except as a mens to an end.
Also there are some, and I am one of them, who are extremely interested in the craft and the process. Of course we are as interested in the final image as anyone, it is just that we enjoy the journey of getting there. I also prefer the train over airplanes for the same reason.
__________________
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Films NOT Dead - Just resting[/FONT]
I'm interested in all phases of the process. For me they all contribute to the photograph and I receive rewards, enjoyment and satisfaction from all phases.
Maybe because I'm a musician trained to translate notes on a page into sound, the performance truly transcends the score in the manner of AA's statement. As much as I enjoy finding a subject that's picture worthy, and making a good negative, only the final print truly fulfills the entire process. Even a good negative or print scan that looks good on a monitor doesn't come close to offering me the satisfaction that a fine print does.....and even that isn't complete until it's mounted and matted.
This question has come up before. Happy users of high-end, they say, cameras such as Leicas have gone so far as to say that the final print has no importance at all.
I hang prints on my walls. I don't hang anything involved in making them, from seeing the subject through framing the print, on the wall. And I don't see how processes can be displayed.
That said, Mark, if you get great pleasure from pushing the button and don't feel the need to print anything, let alone hang your own work on the wall, I don't see what's wrong with that. I mean, you're using your time and other resources to please yourself.
I think the watercolor book example is specifically pertinent to that art and its practitioners.
To me as a photographer, because of the kind of work I do, the process (which is a horrendously vague term) is very important to me, because all the phases of the process I go through, from pre/visualization to finished framed print, are important. I wouldn't produce the kind of work I do if they weren't. To a potential customer, and even moreso to a casual, disinterested viewer of my work, all that is meaningless. They could care less about how I decided to shoot what I shot, what film I shot it with, how I developed the film, and what kind of paper I printed it on. Because I'm printing platinum/palladium, I do get a somewhat more interested audience, and they'll ask questions sometimes that do get in to the technical, but usually nothing more than what kind of print it is, and maybe why did I choose to print using that media.
is it the process or the final print that is important? 
Linear Mode
