Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
I'm not looking for an argument, but I don't agree with the 'latent image' being the purest representation of the artist's intent. It doesn't come alive until it's printed, so what's the point of worshipping the negative? It's an intermediary as a step to the destination of becoming something that is visible and comprehensible by the viewer. I mean, why do you feel it important enough to show prints here, in shows, and on your web site? Shouldn't you just let people look at your negatives? Or better yet, why not let them look with infrared light on an undeveloped piece of film with a latent image on it?

Artists make choices when they print, and it's the culmination of all their decisions in framing the exposure, exposing the film, choice of processing, interpreting the negative, cropping and framing the print, and finally toning and choice of presentation. All those decisions matter to me, and one thing that is immensely important to me is scale. Imagine a Gursky print that's several feet across, represented by an 800x600 pixel jpeg on a web site, or an 8x6" reproduction in a book. While I don't like Gursky's work in general, I can appreciate the impact of scale, which is another intention the photographer has when they make their exposures.

So, to me, and this is my opinion, I think the final print holds tremendous value for the viewing experience. It is an entirely different experience from looking in a book, on a computer screen or projection. Someone mentioned surface texture of a print; you mentioned photogravure - the relief of the print, which I think is an important aspect of making them in the first place, and it doesn't show in a book or on a computer screen.

There are many reasons for me to enjoy the print as the ultimate form of expression.
Thomas, I agree that the final print holds tremendous value for the viewing experience for many people and in some cases even me. By final print, I assume you mean a silver or wet print.

When Beethoven wrote one of his symphonies he may also/or not have conducted the orchestra to play it. This could be said to be unique, as it his original score and his interpretation of his score to performance. However, someone in the future may conduct a version of this symphony that most people consider better, but both versions come from the original score. This does not detract from the value of the writer’s original interpretation, but let us also remember that the original orchestrated by writer of the score, was also performed with the instruments and technology available at the time. Future technology may allow a better interpretation not available to Beethoven at the time.

Does this help, as I also am not trying to start an argument, it is just my opinion.