Quote Originally Posted by PKM-25 View Post
Devil's advocate here...

If you look at a printed photograph who's impact is undeniably in the subject matter, framing, timing, lighting, the seen mastery of it all and it looks great in print, but printed super easy, perhaps just needing the correct contrast filter and no dodging and burning, is it not a great print?

What is a great print then, a sheet of silver gelatin paper that has been labored over that just happens to contain a photographic image, boring, incredible or otherwise...?....or simply a *great* photograph well printed..?

I only ask this because if I were to spend hours on a print only to see a boring photograph afterward, it would not be a great print, even if "Masterfully" printed.
I have no argument with this, PKM. I'm not suggesting every print needs a lot of work to be good. My philosophy is you simply do whatever it takes to make the print you want to make. If a negative prints straight and it is exactly the print you envisioned, no point in tinkering for no reason. On the other hand if a different negative requires monumental efforts, nothing wrong with that either.

And of course I totally agree there is not much point in a great print of a crap image. It always begins with the image. Just that some people believe it ends there, whereas I believe the print can make a big difference.