No, "printing" is the ultimate (in the literal sense of ultimate) skill because it produces the actual photograph that is looked at. A critical point that many people neglect is that "printing" isn't in truth printing. It's actually photographing but using photographic emulsion coated on paper rather than film-base. Exposure, development, fix, and wash are essentially the same in principle for film or paper.

The negative is the subject matter for the second photograph which is executed on paper based emulsion. People who don't make photographs, only camera exposures, often don't realise that classic negative-positive photography is a two stage process, or they don't think it is important because they don't do it themselves. The relationship between a given exposure and a subsequent negative is remarkably free and discretionary. Further along, the relationship between a given negative and a subsequent positive is even more free and discretionary.

The element that carries through in faithfully conducted photograph-making is the recognizability of original subject matter; what the camera was pointed at. Camera-jockeys looking at the pictures back from the lab remember what they clicked at and think "I did that". All they actually did was snap one piece of subject matter in lieu of another. The product in their hands is heavy with the labour and creative fingerprints of a "keen to please" photo-finishing enterprise. Using a camera to select one piece of subject matter (or clicking at everything and picking the nice ones) can be a clever thing to do but the underlying ethos of subject selection is not uniquely photographic. Painters and draughtsmen have been doing it for centuries.

There is, I think, an unfortunate tradition in the picture-making arts in that people are acclaimed for work they did not do. When Rembrandt is credited for paintings done by students in his workshop, when Andy Warhol is the "author" of work he neither saw or signed, when Henri Cartier-Bresson becomes a great photographer by making "click" but no photographs, there is an aesthetic swindle afoot. The movie industry has got it right. Look at the credits rolling up the screen. Everyone is acknowledged but only for what they actually did!