Bresson supervised all his prints. It a print did not meet his standard it went into the trash. Bresson was lucky to surround himself with master printers so he could spend his time making images. Just because he didn't print his negatives doesn't mean he didn't know what a master print should look like.
Kertesz wasn't fond of printing either. Early on he turned over his printing needs to a printer. Penn was very involved with printing but I know he had people printing for him, likewise Avedon. Many of the very successful photographers didn't have time to print. Then theirs all those photographers who only shot chromes. And C printing doesn't contain as many variables and lots of photographers used to turn over their color printing to full time printers, especially dye transfer. For me, I love, love, love printing, but I don't think it's the end all. I'd rather see a poorly printed exciting image, than a virtuoso print of a boring image. I don't think photography always has to be socially relevant either, although it's great when it is. As a good friend once said to me, it either works or it doesn't.
By whole, I assume you mean finished print. But I would suggest the master piece exists at the latent image stage, regardless of whether it is destroyed before process or finished as a naff print or master print.
Often my latent images are better than the developed film or the print. Undeveloped film is always perfect, because no one can see anything to complain about.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
"Only dead fish follow the stream" - Others may caught by hungry bear. ;-)
Still waiting for my virtual mentor...
Who cares. Make your own honest choices.
As for that link a few posts ago, bah. That's only a matter of personal taste. Asking if people can make a photograph like that is silly. Some people would want to, some not. I for one, would not want to make a picture like that. It means nothing to me aesthetically or otherwise, and to me it does little to capture time and place in any real way. It's just a non-descript sliver of time, a snapshot. I could just as easily post links to one of George Tice's urban landscapes, or Ansel's Frozen Lake and Cliffs, or one of Stephen Shore's pictures and ask if anyone on APUG could make one. It doesn't make any sense.
As for me, I don't believe in the separation of image and print. I'm rarely interested in a crap print of a good picture, nor a good print of a crap picture.
Last edited by Michael R 1974; 01-06-2012 at 06:49 PM. Click to view previous post history.