Yes I am also sure that process does matter to Thomas, but he can reasonably choose not to emphasize it...

Quote Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
I can't agree. Process is a process, much more than a mere tool. You do realize that yours is THE argument of digital?
I think the point is that if the output is just about process rather than artistic vision, then it is... just process. When I see an image that is all about process alone, and I don't care whether it is made by redwood gum over ostrich albumen sprinkled with archival diamond dust: that print is a failure as art. There must be a harmony between the image and the process. By "harmony" I mean that there is a compelling reason why the vision and the process came together.

I can think of only a few "process photographs" that really impress me- they are the first images by Niepce and Talbot and so forth.

There must be harmony between process and vision - between the path and the destination - for the fine art to emerge. Photographers can easily become over-obsessed with one or the other to the detriment of the final result.

Anyway let's keep digital out of this. I use it for some things, and happily, and unapologetically. It's complete bunk to throw it all out because some people use it only for convenience or for happy snapping. I mean, I have seen some gawdawful LF work, frankly, that upsets me because I know firsthand how much each sheet costs So what. Everybody gets to do their own thing.